Why do creationists tell such outrageous LIES to attack evolution?

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 158 discussions (1793 posts)

0
lynnechandlerposted 14 years ago
Well, they do run out of steam after a while, lol.
reply report
61
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
getitrite wrote:
Speaking of outrageous lies. This is exactly the kind of outright lies spouted from believers. Just for your information, your bible has no authority. It is merely the writings of dubious psychotic authors, and is utterly absurd, so stop quoting it as if it is reality. This is madness.

- - - - - - - -

ME ...

@ GodTalk ;; That is what some people do when they can not get their head around an intellectual response.

I didn't read what lead up to this:

50 50 % chance it started off that way ??? don't want to take the chance! I'll just assume it did.
reply report
1. 72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The last thing delusional Christians understand is an intellectual response.
  
  So please have some integrity and stop telling outrageous lies.
  reply report
61
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
Also in the story of Cane and Able; God was telling them that Ables deer meat was his favorite over Canes bean soup.

? ? ?
That is why Cane lost his Cool.

? ? ?
reply report
1. 56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  As I said to someone else, the Fall was in Genesis 3, Cain and Abel in Genesis 4. The reason God did not accept Abel's sacrifice is because it wasn't the kind of sacrifice He had asked for. The sacrifice system was one that demonstrated the hatred God had for sin and that the consequences for sin were harsh-death. It was a picture of the ultimate sacrifice for sin, Jesus Christ and his once for all death on the cross as an atoning sacrifice.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  nah, God's into flesh. The cannibalism of drinking Jesus's flesh and drinking his blood
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are taking that which is a ritual symbolizing the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and making it into something it is not. Jesus gave communion to remind us of His blood that was shed for us and His body that was broken for us on the cross of Calvary. Paul also said that as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. So it is a memorial as well as a proclaimation to the world of what Jesus did. In another place Paul also says that the loaf of bread is a symbol of the unity of all believers-one loaf= the one body of believers.
  So there is no actual body and blood involved in the service.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  yes, I know...I was a god-botherer like you for years.
  Interesting though how more ancient religions had sacrifice, including human sacrifice. The symbolism seems rather similar, I think. God seemed to enjoy death - god killed more people than satan
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am not sure what you mean by "god botherer" but I'll take it as a compliment. If you follow the logic of the Judeo-Christian world view than these so called more ancient religions were merely corruptions of the true belief in the one God. According to Romans 1, all men knew God but didn't glorify Him as God. Instead they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and fourfooted animals and crawling creatures.
  So it would follow that if all men, at one time, knew God, they would know of the sacrificial system and would corrupt it as well.
  As far as God liking death is concerned, I think I said in another answer to someone that the societies that God destroyed were corrupt to the core. His killing of these groups was a judgement for sin. They were not just random killings.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  why bother making people if you knew they were going to become 'corrupt to the core?'
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No thats people. Unless your implying people are God. In my view and in a sense you would be right.
  reply report
61
Franz Buhlmannposted 14 years ago
This has to be one of my favorite subjects!

I would love to meet my very first evolutionist ever! If you are one, please reply. So far I have met some that claim to be, only to find out that they truly do not believe in it at all. Perhaps the reason I have not met anyone so far is because, maybe, just maybe, there is no such thing as one.
reply report
72
getitriteposted 14 years ago
Goddunit! That sounds like an intellectual response
reply report
1. 61
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  God dunit!
  
  About the same as ... "It just dun it all by itself."
  ..... Cause ....UH ... UH .. cause it did.".
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  God evolves...that is how we got here in the first place. We evolve, and that is how we got to where we are at this moment. A body in motion tends to stay in motion. The probability is, is that we have always been in motion. A body at rest, tends to remain at rest. These are the first two laws of motion. Care to refute?
  reply report
  61
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with what you said.
  
  In my above statement God dunit vs It did it by itself?
  
  I was just comparing contradiction in terms.
  
  Wasn't making any kind of statement really.
  reply report
73
Kangaroo_Jaseposted 14 years ago
So.............. Who brought coffee and donuts???
reply report
61
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
Mark Knowles wrote...
You just cannot understand that the first life as we know it could have come from non-life.

You need a Majikal Super Being wot dunnit?

That right?

- = - = - = - = - = - =

It seems to me that it requires the same kind of magical trick for a rock all by itself to form intelligence,and a heart beat, and legs,etc as it does for a "Majikal Super Being" to have dunnit.

Mark ? I may be wrong, but I think that I have discovered the source of your dilemma.

There seems to be three choices as to where ALL of THIS came from.
1 ... inanimate material just ALL on its own turns itself into an animate object, creating its own heartbeat, legs and arms, and most of all intelligence.
NOW that is a Majikal trick if I ever heard of one!

2 If #1 is true,?, why could this process have not produced (as you call it) "a Majikal Super Being ?" that took it from there?

3 "a Majikal Super Being" breathed the breath of life into a rock.

Neither of these three choices are any more believable than the other!
So I guess that we all agree after all, except for the small stuff. THAT

MAGIC WAS REQUIRED ...
We , YOU, I, and everyone else is just argueing over whose concept of how this Magic trick was pulled off.

We all agree, It was a magic trick.
reply report
1. 0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No we don't - nothing magical about it - it just an inevitable process from the original event from which the matter and energy originated.
  reply report
  61
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yet you can only see to that horizon, Huh ?
  
  the original event from which the matter and energy originated. Was nothing short of a Magic trick.
  
  Who performed this magic trick?
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That question nobody has got close to hazarding a guess yet
  
  - but of all the vast range of possibilities - a super being doing it all to get a gang of misfits to play with him and worship him is maybe the least likely explanation.
  reply report
  61
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  but of all the vast range of possibilities - a super being doing it all to get a gang of misfits to play with him and worship him is maybe the least likely explanation.
  
  = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - =
  
  I agree that we got it wrong as to the whys and wherefores.
  
  But just because we got that wrong... doesn't mean that the thing ISN"T
  reply report
78
DoubleScorpionposted 14 years ago
I am curious of something...The Bible and the Christian religion started in the middle east and egyptian area of the world and was passed on to the roman empire as well...could someone please explain to me why the majority of the middle east and egypt is of a muslim faith instead of christian faith? If the Christian Faith follows the one "true" god...then who are the Jews and Muslims following? and since christianity is based off of the teachings of a jewish person...Jesus...Why doesn't that part of the world have a majority christian faith?
reply report
75
frogdroppingposted 14 years ago
See all I'm reading from the last few posts about religion isn't that there's proof of it - so much as proof that even believers doubt the religion of others.

So believers behave like an atheist when it suits then.

Check mate.
reply report
1. 69
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Frogs stay above though. As well as russians
  reply report
  75
  frogdroppingposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Safest place to be Misha
  reply report
2. 84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How does an athiest behave?
  reply report
75
frogdroppingposted 14 years ago

... but it's okay for the religious to judge the religion of others? See below.

Re the above - change a few words, use most of the bold ones ... and that could be Mark Knowles talking. Refuting the belief in a majikal being.
reply report
72
getitriteposted 14 years ago
I'm still waiting to test the bible, before I totally believe.
And since we had to hold evolution to such a rigid, unreasonable, stringent standard, I assume we will be doing the same with the bible.

Just waiting before I make a decision. I hope the Lord doesn't come back before we can do this, and my horrible fate be sealed.
reply report
61
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
idamac wrote ...
As long as we understand that passing judgment on others is what is meant. However, we must use our own judgment, or rather discernment, when we make decisions about people and things

- - - - - - - - - -

ME
Especially when it comes to how another person's behavior affects us. And the behavior of everyone within our own immediate environment does affect US instantly and directly.

Everyone MUST use discernment as to whether we agree with or disagree with that person and how they affect us.

Just a part of life that we can not live without.
reply report
61
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
Why do creationists tell such outrageous LIES to attack evolutio???????
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - =

ME ...
allow me to simplify this question.

Why do creationists tell such outrasgeous lies ?

Why does anyone lie about anything?

Because they are human.

In general, humans can not be honest with themselves.

I am human!

Are YOU ?
reply report
1. 56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  A lie is something that one knows to be false, and yet tells it anyway. Could it be that I and other Christians like me actually believe what we say? You may call us mislead or simply wrong, but to call one a liar for a deeply held belief is misleading itself and slanderous.
  For the record, I don't think that the people on this forum who are against my beliefs are liars. Mislead and wrong, yes.
  I wish you all would give me at least that much consideration for things I have been looking into my whole life.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you think scientists are going to so much trouble to discredit creationism? What do they have to gain by promoting something, which if proven wrong, would be very detrimental to their reputations?
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Do they actually go through that trouble for that reason? Or for the sake of discovery as they do in other areas?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They are seeking truth, of course. But many "believers" seem to think they are doing so just to deny their beliefs. They don't realize their beliefs are not important to scientific endeavors. Or perhaps they do.
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah ok.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'd say they go to the trouble now because for decades creationists have been hell-bent in destroying science, because they know evolution casts doubt on their beliefs
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing can cast doubt on experience. Kinda like if you tell me breathing doesn't exist. My experience tells me otherwise.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  likewise, my experience tells me that God doesn't answer prayer, doesn't heal and doesn't look after those that believe in him
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  ok
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So a lie is subjective?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Depends on if the teller is delusional or not!
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  mmm..So if a child says to her mum. Mum there is a cat on TV eating an elephant. (Striped Tiger) Does the Mum assume she is lying or realize she doesn't know what a tiger is called.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Most moms would think their child had an active imagination, I would guess.
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When they talk about invisible friends yes. However, when they refer to things like that, you just got to check it out. A cat is a cat as far as a child is concerned. A tiger looks like a bigger version of a cat so in the childs mind its a cat. Even if you try to convince the child its a tiger they will not understand that someone has given this bigger cat a different name. The funny part is..when they see a cute little playful tiger they want to have one as a pet!
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I misread your post. LOL! I thought you were saying, on top of the TV, not on a program! In that case I see nothing to disbelieve as anything could be seen on a TV program.
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Haha
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  A Tiger is a cat though... a really big one.. but still a cat...
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Haha yes, she kept pointing that out to me at the time!
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  so what went on the ark - a cat or a tiger? Or neither? You know it's only recently that creationists accept microevolution, because they realise there is no way all species of animal can fit on the ark
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have no idea...The Ark wasn't no where big enough to hold everything that was claimed...
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Especially the dinosaurs! LOL!
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How about the animals of that country alone? Is that possible?
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I highly doubt it Penny... According to the measurements in the bible, The Ark was only about 450 ft long, 75 ft wide and 45 ft high... And I can tell you being Navy... there is no way a ship that size held that many animals, food and other things needed to last almost the 6 months to 1 year they were onboard...A Navy ship close to that size can hold about 180 people, but only enough food to last maybe 45 days tops...so an Ark with 8 adults and unclean animals X 2 and clean animals X 7... plus enough food and bedding to last for almost 1 year...I would have to say it would be very unlikely....Impossible...Maybe not... but very unlikely
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wow ok that kinda makes that account null and void!
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  and then the post-flood problems, like no food when everything has been wiped out after nearly a year on a boat. And how did the flightless birds get to New Zealand and just marsupials and monotremes to australia?
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We didn't have a flood.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I stand corrected. According to Webster's Dictionary a lie is :
  1. An assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with the intent to deceive.
  
  2. An untrue or innaccurate statement that may or may not be believed by the speaker.
  
  3. A charge of lying.
  
  If you meant to use the number 2 definition than you may have a point. But I can use that definition against you as well. But I think we all know what definition you intended.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I do not claim invisible deities are communicating with me. Nor do I dare act as spokesmen for a god or interpret its words. Know anyone that does these things? LOL!
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, it would seem to me that you think that Scientists are the Supreme beings and you are their spokesman. They can't do anything wrong in your eyes. By the way, are you one of those evolutionists who believes that life on this planet came from alien visitors century's ago? If not, what do you think of this fairy tale that some espouse? It would seem that they are grasping at straws to explain away a major hole in evolutionary theory.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yes! I meant to put this: LOL!
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your avatar says Godtalk. Did your god give you permission to use his name or are you merely assuming it's okay because you are actually doing his will? Do you pretend to be a prophet? I asked you what denomination you are. Are you afraid to say? Baptist, Methodist, Church of God, Jehovah Witness, Episcopalian, Mormon, to which cult do you pass god's word along to?
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you know anything about religons in this century there are actually churches which call themselves non-denominational. The original Christians had no denominational affiliations, but were believers in the resurrected Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
  I am an evangelical Christian which believes in the fundamentals of the faith that were set down for us in the Word of God. Christians may differ in many ways, but we agree on the things which make us uniquely Christian as opposed to another religion. If you want me to spell it out more, just let me know.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  To answer your question as to whether I am a prophet, no I am not. I try to speak from my knowledge of the Word of God and the common sense He has given me, but I, unlike God and His Word, am a fallible human being. It is my prayer that what I say that goes against what God has taught will be forgotten by anyone who reads. God uses His people to give His gospel to this world and I am attempting, in my meager way to do this.
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You're doing ok.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  oh, so that's how they try to pretend they're not all split into sects - call themselves 'non-denominational' - don't fool me
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am not trying to fool anyone. You are good at putting words in peoples mouths. The thing that makes Christians break into sects is the same thing that makes the world break up into various groups. That is sin. Christians, contrary to your belief about them, don't claim to be perfect. In fact when we are saved we receive a new nature. The only trouble is, we still have that sinful nature which won't be totally eradicated until Christ returns and we receive a glorified body. God is daily conforming us into the image of the only perfect man who ever lived, His Son, Jesus Christ. And He will one day complete that process. Until then, we have to wrestle with sin in us and in others.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  so do you blame birth defects & cancer on sin? Or did god just enjoy death and suffering?
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The simple answer to this question is yes, birth defects and cancer and every other thing you can think of like that were caused by sin. Sins effects have taken over the entire universe. That is not to say that someone who gets cancer got it because he sinned in a particular way. The sin which began with Adam caused a curse on the creation so that things like this happen. This will be eradicated when Christ returns.
  report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  This is exactly the kind of outrageous lies being told in support of abject ignorance. Seriously, how can anyone actually still believe this nonsense?
  
  Disease is the result of MICROBES! Look it up. This is absurd.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  To say that disease is caused by sin is not to doubt the existence of microbes. What I am saying is that sickness, disease and death caused by these microbes did not occur on a sinless earth. But I am sure that you know what I meant. I am beginning to understand that you too just want to support your theories by arguing about absurd things.
  report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No I'm adamantly suggesting that your need to add another step before microbes is delusional nonsense. Microbes...end of story...there is no such thing as sin. And the concept of a sinless earth is an absurd whimsical premise.
  
  You say a lot of stuff that has no basis at all in reality.
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! Religious beliefs are indeed very dangerous for mankind.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So - why do you feel the need to cause so many fights and attack proven science in order to spread your ridiculous religion? I see you are once again forcing this conversation away from the original discussion. Please stay on track and try to stop making excuses as to why Christians do not need to practice what they preach.
  
  I am sin free, so when you try and wrestle with what you mistakenly perceive as sin in others - remember - this is what causes all the wars.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It seems that you always enter into conversations in which I am answering a direct question from somebody else. I did not steer it that way. It was your fellow evolutionist that did this.
  By the way, I have never met a perfect man. I'd like to meet you to see what one actually looks like.
  report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  so do you believe depression is a supernatural curse or possession by the devil or similar?
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  as a former christian & someone with a science degree, I've concluded that christianity has no substance what-so-ever - it's all based on the assumption the bible is true and certain people 'hear' God.
  All scientific theories have a huge body of evidence behind them. Scientific theories are open to further refinement etc.
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Whether the bible is true or not. The morals it teaches are not good or has no substance in your opinion? Like, do not judge, don't kill, love your enemies. You might not like the tub but you don't need to throw away the baby do you?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Kill a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night? Yeah - nice morals.
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Again thats people.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - that is the bible.
  
  I suppose you have not actually read it - have you?
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What do you think? I plucked what I know out of the ether haha. I know it seems that way sometimes. Anyways... no the bible did not kill the woman. A bible is a book. Man did. See the difference. Or no?
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good grief! I am going with - no - you have not read it - you are just parroting a few select pieces that you heard some one else say - seeing as you did not know that it says to kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night.
  
  A minute ago - you were defending it - now - it is just a book. And man is capable of deciding on his own morals - which means we can discard the book. See the hypocrisy? Or no?
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Actually no, where is the hypocrisy in.... the bible didn't do it man did? Which was my point.
  
  Where is the hypocrisy in the morals that it teaches?
  
  If man choses not to adhere to the morals taught, is that the bibles responsibility or mans?
  
  If you cannot tell the difference between a book and a man we have nothing to discuss...again.
  
  You have already made your mind up I haven't read the bible so what was the point in asking?
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - you made it perfectly clear that you have not read it. The morals it teaches? Oh - you mean killing a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night?
  
  Yes - I see what you mean about being very, very selective and it actually making no sense to say the bible teaches morals when this is one of those morals.
  
  My mistake. I honestly thought you were defending the bible and telling people not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Silly me. No idea how I came to that erroneous conclusion.
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Perhaps it wasn't as perfectly clear to you as you think. The baby represented the morals. The tub, the religion.
  
  That was not a moral. To kill a woman for not being a virgin. That was an account of history. The writer who translated that was a man. This is what you seem to not get?
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah - so some of the morals are morals and some of them are not?
  
  The writers who wrote all of it were men. The morals in it are as contradictory as your statements. Because you are a religionist - and religion is a contradiction - as is the bible. Which is why we are throwing the dead baby out with the stagnant bathwater and the leaky tub. Sorry this is too difficult a concept for you.
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No worries, its not difficult at all. You are still not getting it but thats ok.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh - I get it just fine thanks. You are selectively defending some of the morals in the bible and saying there are morals we should keep - but only some of them. You are not defending the bible in any way shape or form.
  
  Condescending huh? Like it. Nice morals. I am 100% certain it is all me failing to get it and nothing to do with your communication skills. I also feel certain this has never been an issue for you in the past. But, that's OK.
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you say so.
  
  Perhaps you are not understanding that Man has perception. Always has. You decided that an account of a historical event is suddenly a moral because a man or several men perceived that killing women, killing sons etc etc as Gods instruction is definitely Gods moral. Via what channel do you think God instructed? Is there another way to perceive God other than perception? Perhaps you know of another way?
  
  Man perceives, man acts based on what he perceives. What is man perceiving though if it is tainted by his own experience?
  
  If you read the bible in context and read what is surrounding the different accounts you might see that a lot of what is claimed to be God is to justify what power they are seeking or what domination they wish to achieve. Depending on the story that is.
  
  Did you notice the morals I was pointing to or not? The 10 commandments. There are others there too if you look. If people choose to use them for non beneficial ways. That has nothing to do with God deciding it be that way or this. This is my point.
  
  Why look at the weeds when you can enjoy the flowers. If you enjoy looking at the weeds...ok.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you say so. As I said - you are selectively defending some of the morals in the bible. What did I get wrong about that?
  
  And please stop lying to me - it insults my intelligence. You made absolutely no mention of the ten commandments. This is what you actually said:
  
  In any case - Where do the ten commandments tell you to not judge and to love your enemies?
  
  Guess what? They do not. Which means - as you have made abundantly clear - you have not actually read the bible.
  
  Which brings us back to the original question. Or perhaps we just need to work on your communication skills?
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The selectively defending, as you put it, is not what I was doing, although that is what you think. I was making a point which you haven't acknowledged at all. Why is that I wonder?
  
  Perhaps you will need to give me that language lesson because you keep bringing it up haha. Oh and read the passage again just in case you do not understand my language. "10 commandements and there are others there too if you look"
  
  Granted they are mixed examples but I do not memorize where they come from which is why I added "and there are others there too if you look"
  
  You are still interested to know when and where I did my study though right? If so. You can ask directly. If not ok.
  
  So where are we at now?
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We are at seems to be the position of you once again insulting my intelligence by directly lying to me. I quoted exactly what you said word for word using the quote facility.
  
  Yes - I acknowledged that you are selectively defending some of the morals in the bible and - if it salves your ego - I also acknowledge that some of the morals the bible teaches are good rules to live by. Some of them are not.
  
  I don't care where you did your "study". If you cannot even remember the ten commandments - it does not seem to have been a very good course or facility. Does it?
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Not sure where you think I insulted your intelligence? If that is the way you are percieving it, I am not sure how else I am meant to reply? Yes you quoted and I replied. Was that not good enough for you?
  
  Yes I know you acknowledged that you believe I am selectively defending some of the morals in the bible.
  
  I was referring to acknowledging the main points that I have been making in just about every post to you. That is.... Man has perception. How one perceives Gods instruction and how one choses to act on those perceptions.
  
  Haha, my ego doesn't need to be salved. It doesn't bother me whether you get any thing out of the bible or not. If you do great, if you don't thats great too. Only you have to live with whether you do or you don't. That was never ever a question for me.
  
  You can judge me or my studies any way you like. Doesn't bother me.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is no such thing as god. Why would I acknowledge this nonsense?
  
  I acknowledge that you think this is the case. Will that do? This has no basis in reality and it is odd how desperate you are to get others to subscribe to yor belief system. This is invariably what causes all the conflicts.
  
  Yes - insulting my intelligence by lying to my face about what you said. Still - no one could accuse you religious followers of having any morals.
  
  Are we seeing the hypocrisy yet?
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  I realize you don't believe in God. That is your choice. If that is your reason for not acknowleging my previous points ok. Why then even bother discussing whatever I have to say if you don't believe there is a God?
  
  Where am I trying to get you or anyone to subscribe to my beliefs? You addressed my post. It is polite to answer. In my experience you cannot subscribe. You have to experience. No amount of belief is going to give you that experience. So why would I bother getting subscribers in your mind? I can only point to. No subscribers necessary.
  
  I can't help it if you perceive me as lying or insulting. Thats your perception.
  
  I was under the impression you wanted to discuss. If you didn't ok.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I was wanting to discuss, but you have clouded the discussion point by lying about what you said. I can once again quote you if that helps - but seeing as you ignored what I quoted and once again told me you said something other than what you actually said - I am not sure I see the point.
  
  What is the subject of this thread?
  
  Why would you point to this if not to try and convince me? Odd though - now I have to believe in god to understand what you are saying about morals in the bible? Dear me.
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  So we have nothing to discuss if that is you view. Ok
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - it is your view:
  
  Dear me.
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Haha ok we really are on two different wave lengths here.
  
  How is this my view:
  
  [b] I was wanting to discuss, but you have clouded the discussion point by lying about what you said. I can once again quote you if that helps - but seeing as you ignored what I quoted and once again told me you said something other than what you actually said - I am not sure I see the point. What is the subject of this thread? Why would you point to this if not to try and convince me? Odd though - now I have to believe in god to understand what you are saying about morals in the bible? Dear me. [/]
  
  In your view Im lying. In your view you think I am trying to convince you of something. In your view you think you have to believe in God to understand.
  
  So what is the point in discussing when in your view I am a liar and I am trying to convince you of something and you don't believe in God?
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are lying about what you said. I can quote you once again if that would help, but it is right there in black and white and I already did that once and you ignored it.
  
  You are trying to convince me of something.
  
  You have clouded the discussion.
  
  You are right - there is no point trying to discuss anything with you.
  
  ciao
  report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I couldn't help but notice that you attributed all the bad things to man, and all of the good stuff, like the 10 commandments, to God.
  
  This is a presupposition that God represents good. Which means your views are hopelessly subjective.
  
  How do you know it's not the other way around?
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  And if I see man is in and of God what might you see then?
  report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  confusion and nonsense.
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Haha Man is only part of the whole. The whole is God which man is a part of. Not separate but we perceive separate-ness.
  
  I know you don't get the wave analogy or is that Randy..anyway.
  
  So I won't go there. Will have to ponder a way to explain it if you want. If not thats ok.
  report
  60
  Woman Of Courageposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mark, Your response is hilarious.
  report
  60
  Woman Of Courageposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  pennyofheaven, thanks for helping him understand the bible did not kill the woman.
  report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Very True...the bible didn't kill the woman...but then of course guns don't kill people either...but when placed into the hands of certain people, both can be used as tools of destruction.
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes in a sense I do agree. You just cannot hurt someone with a bible. One can misunderstand what is in it and use it as an excuse for thier own destructive tendencies yes.
  report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Quite True... those things are just inanimate objects until a person chooses to use them... then they can be used for good or bad...
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Haha I don't think he got it. But ah well.
  report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  the baby was dead, so I threw it out too. I wrote a hub with that title - ex-christian - throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
  
  No, religious morals are held up as black and white & used to justify persecuting groups of people.
  One can have ethics without the bible eg it is wrong to attack someone, but if someone broke into my house and was trying to hurt my son, I'd have no hesitation in whacking them over the head with my cast-iron frypan. There are shades of grey in ethics
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Perhaps you missed my point I'm not sure? I did not say one cannot have ethics without the bible. I was asking why you do not see the ethics it is teaching. What people choose to do with these ethics is highly a personal thing. Has nothing to do with the ethics being taught. KKK use proverbs to excuse what they do I am told. I don't know this because I don't know any members. Just using it as an example as to what people will use to justify whatever they are choosing to do.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  it does not teach ethics, it teaches prescribed morals.
  
  I am faithful to my husband, am an honest person and am a responsible citizen. I don't need a book of confused morals to tell me to do this
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No you don't I agree. I just wondered why you got nothing at all out of your time with whatever denomination. No harm done if you didn't.
  report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  POH - it won't let me add to your next comment.
  "No harm done" - actually, plenty of harm was done & is done to innocent children indoctrinated with this stuff based on guilt and fear. People are shunned by their families if they don't believe in the invisible super-being.
  People commit suicide when they realise they are gay, but can't tell their families. People are told to stop taking their medication if they have mental illness.
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  I meant no harm done to you if you got nothing out of your time in the church.
  
  Yes I see how harmful the misinterpretations have been and still are.
  report
  61
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think that you have misunderstood my last post.
  
  I do believe in God, the Son, and holy Ghost.
  
  Being human, it is a natural trait to lie to ourselves.
  We often do not realize it when we do.
  But deep , deep down inside we know the truth when we hear it, whether we acknowledge it or not.
  
  When we hear any of these truths that threaten our own established, hand-me-down belief systems, we just ignore them.
  It is hard to argue against something when deep down inside, we know it to be true.
  These are the moments that we should be searching for and not avoiding.
  
  A lying spirit has infiltrated the interpretations of scripture. This is the only reason that there are so many different interpretations of one single truth.?????
  Really, really think about it!? What other reason can there be ? Honestly.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. Except I don't feel that even the original version was actually the truth. If it was the actual truth, then this thing we have now has got to have been an almost totally re-written document.
  reply report
  61
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I was actually speaking of both theist and atheists.
  
  I believe that the bible as such as I have had access to. (New KJV) is adequate as is, though it does contain a few mis translated words.
  
  In my opinion, It being politically correct for each individual who reads it, being given leeway to impose their own interpretation upon it has lead to total confusion.
  
  I believe in evolution to a point.
  Life came into being, and then due to selective breeding, a species then evolves.
  
  But a long long time ago a group of men interpreted scriptures incorrectly, these misinterpretations took on a life of their own So-to-Speak.
  
  And today we have Religion. Having 10,000 or more different interpretations of a misguided doctrine.
  
  Where this doctrine derailed (in my opinion) was when they said; OH Jesus could not have really meant these things that was so clearly spoken, cause we are still here!
  
  YEP, I'm talking about the second coming.
  It hasn't happened yet cause I'm still here. ???
  
  Sorry that is not a logical argument.
  When we rethink that issue, and believe these words in scripture that Jesus is said to have said.
  
  This changes the whole message of scripture.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  getitrite, you make an interesting point, but that is not the only possibility. There have been some editorial additions, mistranslations and the like, but what if the Bible is largely as originally written and intended?
  
  Some of it doesn't make much sense, when taken literally. There are apparent contradictions and inconsistencies. For instance, God is supposed to be love, but why is there so much "vengeance" and "hate" from Him? And why did He go overboard protecting the murderer, Cain?
  
  Could it be the Bible was not written for the lazy? Could it be you have to work at it to gain the "intent?" I have made several startling discoveries of that intent, and I've barely scratched the surface. For instance, I've found out why Cain received such outlandish protection. I discovered a biblical timeline compatible with those of science. I deciphered the mechanics of creation and have used them on several occasions. And I discovered that the Jewish mystics had a hand in Genesis that the Jewish traditionalists likely didn't know about. The outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs is also easily explained, but their ages are too short; and Genesis gives us the factor with which to multiply them to their proper size.
  
  The most important line in the entire Bible, in my sometimes not-so-humble opinion, is Genesis 1:26--that we were created in God's image. This explains God's love for us. It explains our predicament, and why we need salvation. God's image is that of God. That makes each of us inherently "baby gods." This gives new meaning to the idea of "spiritual reawakening." And, it seems, ego is the only thing standing in our way.
  
  It's hard to discuss anything without ego getting in the way. This is the "self" we need to "kill" before we can gain everlasting life--the reawakening of the sleeping immortal within.
  
  This might be why so many so-called "creationists" will not make their "ship" to Heaven (reawakening). Those who lie to themselves about "accepting Jesus," but who are instead following their own egos, will have missed the boat. What a shock that will be.
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your views are more reasonable than some others, however, as you can see from my posts, I have no use for the bible, regardless of how it is interpreted. I also see no point in everlasting life. I have accepted that there is no God.
  
  You asked: what if the bible is largely as originally written and intended?
  
  The fact is that we don't and can't know that, so I must dismiss it as I do all dubious documents.
  
  Also I fail to see how getting rid of the ego will somehow cause everything to start making sense.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Getitrite, I completely understand not having any use for the Bible. There are many books and activities I have no use for. This is a matter of interest and value placed on those things.
  
  I'm curious why you see no value in everlasting life. Does death and oblivion hold more interest for you? If you had the choice between living ten more seconds and living twenty more years, either would be equally acceptable to you?
  
  I understand that you have accepted that there is no God, but how did you arrive at that conclusion? I would like to understand why. Motives and the foundations of cognitive reasoning are particularly interesting to me. As a fiction writer, this is particularly fascinating.
  
  While I understand how you can say that we don't and can't know that the Bible is largely as originally written and intended, I don't see how your conclusion is logically derived from this. I happen to agree that we don't and can't know my veracity of my hypothesis, but as a working hypothesis, it is one way of investigating a puzzle. We also don't and can't know that the Bible is NOT largely as originally written and intended. We can't know both sides of the argument, so your conclusion is non sequitur and an argument to ignorance. If we had proof that the Bible was a sick joke, then your conclusion would be perfect.
  
  continued on next...
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  continued from previous...
  
  How did you conclude that the Bible is a dubious document. In the big scheme of things, I realize that I could be wrong, delusional and that the Bible is indeed someone's sick joke. But I hold only about 0.000000001% chance of this, based on my own experiences. You state that it is "dubious" with an air of such certainty. On what do base that certainty.
  
  If you are inherently a package deal (and I have a certain amount of proof that we are): Homo sapiens body, ego, plus sleeping immortal (baby god), then getting rid of ego will tend to force the sleeping immortal to awaken. That's the real you--the permanent you. Seeing the universe around you without your mortal eyeballs can take some getting used to. The CIA tried to make this "remote viewing" work a few decades ago, but wasn't successful. Too much ego in the way. Seeing the world from your spiritual viewpoint, rather than your physical, will add understanding to Genesis 1:26, that we were created in the image of God.
  
  When your current Homo sapiens body stops working, some years or decades in the future, as an awakened immortal you will experience that death unlike any death you've experienced before. And we've all had so many. You will have continuity of consciousness despite bodily death (this is the everlasting life, mentioned earlier). Things like that can be the result of eliminating ego. Such experiences speak much louder than my simple words.
  
  Rod Martin, Jr. (lone77star)
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  well, I'm curious to know whether the creationists that made false claims are just misinformed & deluded by their beliefs, or deliberately lie for Jesus. eg, the creationist geologist who switches according to his audience - thousands of years for creationists, millions of years for everyone else - gets paid by both. Now who is he lying to?
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's hard to believe that a scientist would cater to two conflicting audiences like that, but hey--scientist are human. It won't be the first time a scientist was caught lying. Most scientists I've known wouldn't condone such behavior. And thank goodness for that. The fact that our technology works is proof that most scientists are telling the truth.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  a bible-believing creationist 'scientist' lying
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it's hard to believe they exist, but it's a big planet. Room for lots of variety.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Or, others know it to be false and it is propagated due to ignorance. However, if one is shown that it is indeed false thus alleviated their ignorance but they continue to tell it anyway, then they are indeed knowingly spreading lies.
  
  Yes, you do believe what you say, but that doesn't mean any of it is valid. To be shown that a concept like evolution does indeed work as it is theorized to work, and Christians continue to state that evolution is false, they are indeed liars.
  
  Yet, Christians will not give consideration to evolution, in fact, they will not even begin to take the time to understand evolution, hence they are making statements and claims against that which have no clue in understanding.
  
  That's even worse than just lying about it.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good points, Beelzedad, but not all Christians diss evolution. A large minority, yes, but not all of them, not by a long shot!
  
  The ones that do are sometimes unintelligent, fearful or too lazy to figure out that the Bible does not agree with their interpretation of it. But usually, it's because they have too much ego invested in their beliefs.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure there are indeed Christians who have taken the time to understand evolution, but not by a long shot.
  reply report
74
lone77starposted 14 years ago
Creationists (as in biblical literalists) are confused. They don't know the difference between "interpretation" and "intent." Defending their own narrow interpretation in direct contradiction of reality (the findings of science) is defense of a delusion. In other words, they are deluded, and angry at anyone telling them so.

After all, delusion is the product of ignoring reality.

Some creationists are lazy. They take one interpretation of biblical wisdom, sit back and think they've made it. When someone says something which rocks their boat, they deny its existence for fear of sinking (losing the foundation of their beliefs).

Some creationists are merely afraid. Anything which contradicts their narrow interpretation is a threat to their salvation. It is also a threat to their ego.

Most creationists I've met are arrogant. "My way is the right way" to interpret the Bible. They are full of ego, and don't realize that ego is the very thing they need to be saved from. They have entirely too much fun telling others how wrong they are, and how they will go to hell. If there is a hell, could it be they're already in it?

A few creationists are not literalists, don't lie, accept evolution completely, don't pretend to know it all, and are hungrily searching for answers. A rare breed that lot.
reply report
1. 56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just like it is a rare breed of evolutionist that admits that there might be something out there that they cannot put under their microscopes. Maybe there is more to reality than meets the eye. Arrogance and an attitude of superiority and "My way or no way" are not confined to religion. This attitude can even be seen in some Scientists with PHD's.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly! And not just "some" scientists. Perhaps a large minority if not a blazing majority.
  
  Ego is an equal-opportunity crippler.
  
  God gave us free will. Abusing that free will is what got us in this predicament in the first place. But we need free will to find our way out of ego. God cannot do it for us. That's why "believers" need to stop following ego, and get humble.
  
  Scientists have adopted the wrong paradigm with "skepticism." Scientific method requires us scientists to remain objective and unbiased, and yet skepticism contains a built-in bias--that of "doubt." A much better paradigm for science is that of "restraint" and "humility." But too many scientists are attached to their egos. Thus, skepticism is sometimes found to possess other traits like, "self-indulgent ridicule," or "unsupported dismissiveness." Why would scientists use such unscientific behavior? Because it feels so good! (to ego, at least)
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Are you speaking for all scientists?
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Gee, Randy. What a silly question. Are you asking it on behalf of all humans?
  
  I speak for only one scientist. That does not stop me from observing and reporting.
  
  Will most scientists ever realize the flaw? I hope they do. Science will benefit. Ego will not.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry about my "silly question." Your post seemed to indicate you were not merely speaking for yourself, but for many other scientists.
  
  "But too many scientists are attached to their egos."
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  true - I'm skeptical about all things, including science. I've concluded though that a supernatural being that has a personal interest in me most likely does not exist. Read my hubs for details.
  There is stacks of evidence in science - of course those that don't know much about science just believe the lies that say the contrary.
  I'd like to believe there is a personal God - I don't see any evidence for one - all those years I talked to myself. Real life doesn't match up with doctrine.
  If there is a supernatural being, I'm 99% positive it isn't the god of the bible
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am sorry to hear that. I sense that you were hurt at one time by one who claimed to be a Christian. I apologize if someone did something that caused you to lose your faith. I couldn't imagine a life without the relationship that I have with Jesus Christ. It is quite precious.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  tell me about his relationship - how exactly do you have a personal relationship with an invisible entity?
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I've written hubs about it, so won't regurgitate here. What started me questioning was the hypocrisy of god-followers; much like the title of this thread.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good points, Baileybear, but there's a subtle, yet profound, difference between being skeptical and using restraint.
  
  I'm not sure what you mean by THE "God" of the Bible. There are so many versions of God in the Bible and so many interpretations of those versions. Perhaps you're right that most of those interpretations are wrong or possibly even delusional. Perhaps even your own interpretation of biblical God is wrong.
  
  You talk a lot about religion and God, and you say that you are "skeptical" perhaps even of your own point-of-view. That would be a good measure of restraint for any scientist. Bravo! But when push comes to shove, you can't seem to muster the strength to talk about real issues.
  
  If you're so interested in discussing this subject, then why won't you discuss miracles which have happened in modern times--namely my own? You say there is no proof of God, but when proof is offered, you say you're not interested. Isn't that being a little hypocritical?
  
  In most other respects, you seem to offer great logic and dispassionate objectivity. But like James Watkins, when the subject hits too close to home, and you have to look at something that threatens your worldview, you attack the messenger rather than the message. But why attack at all? Why not merely discuss the issue as a scientist? Put ego aside.
  
  I have offered a hypothesis and proof to back it up. A true scientist who discusses such an issue at such length (as you do concerning God and religion) would at least turn a critical eye to the hypothesis and its so-called proof. Perhaps you can help me by finding a flaw in my logic. As a computer scientist, I always admire keen logic, even when mine is found lacking. Results matter.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I've been very honest about how I feel about things - I've written many hubs about my journey - how much more real do you want.
  
  The god of the bible killed people over trivial things, approved of cruelty to animals & wasn't against slavery. Do you have a different version?
  
  Is your ego tied up in your theory which I didn't make sense of?
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  My ego is tied up in a lot of things. I'm trying to get rid of the pesky devil. Thanks for asking, though.
  
  I'm not talking theory, my dear Baileybear. I'm talking about a real live event which involved around two thousand automobiles on one of the busiest streets in Los Angeles. All of this happened 33 (almost 34) years ago.
  
  I pictured in my mind bumper-to-bumper traffic opening up and within five seconds two miles of Wilshire Boulevard had an empty center lane, with two walls of thick, snarling traffic on either side. This condition persisted for the four minutes it took for me to traverse that gauntlet. During that four minutes, not one individual driver turned into that starkly empty center lane in the midst of rush-hour traffic. You see, Baileybear--no theory, just hard facts. The details are in my hub on the anatomy of this miracle. And yes, it was a miracle in the most challenging sense of the word. I do analyze those facts, but they remain facts no matter what theory is used to explain them.
  
  This may not prove the "God" you see in the Bible, but it proves god-like abilities. A purely physical body cannot change, break or otherwise circumvent the laws of physical reality. Simple logic. And where there are god-like abilities displayed, there must be a god. Each of us possesses these abilities, though most are too asleep to use them. On a few occasions, I have woken up enough to do something with those abilities--when ego took a vacation.
  
  Human suffering is never trivial. But far more important is God's love for his children, and those children are not Homo sapiens bodies. You keep missing this point, Baileybear. You keep thinking that God's image is Homo sapiens. Not even close! Just because your old Christian buddies had this misconception doesn't make it so.
  
  What would you do if your son were trapped and in danger of being killed? Would the clothes he wears be important in your attempts to save him? Of course not. It wouldn't matter to you if those clothes became soiled or ripped, just so long as your son was safe, right? God cares about His children awakening, not the bodies they wear.
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The longer the vacation the better. Alas it is useful sometimes.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Surely, you've got to be kidding. You're claiming that you used a gods ability 33 years ago to part traffic and this is your reasoning for believing in a god?
  
  Good joke, that was quite funny.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This explains quite a bit. Perhaps he needs to work for the transit authority. His powers could be put to good use there. LOL! Wow, we sure get some doozies on these forums!
  
  Doesn't it make you want to be like them?
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And Randy, randy, randy! With a surname like "Godwin," I can see that you're just overcompensating for something. LOL!
  
  Doozies? That's rich! Randy, you use a mirror entirely too much. I could imagine being like you, but I wouldn't want to gag on my own juices. But laughter is such good medicine.
  
  Thankssss-s-s-ss for the good laughsssss-s-ss-ss.
  
  And in a hundred and twenty years, when you're pisssssssing in your new diapers, give your new mommy a wink, if you remember how to do that. Reincarnation is such a bitch with idiots.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I actually read through the last set of posts you made - and I have to agree with Randy, we get some real doozies on here
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Beelzedad, no I wasn't kidding, but I can use a little skepticism (or restraint) for the sake of argument. Care to discuss it?
  
  What would you call the incident, if it were to happen to you?
  
  Are you the intellectual type who can discuss the topic intelligently, or is you da Homer Simpleton mentality where anyting ya don't understand you gotsta poke fun at. Ha ha ha! Being stupid is such a waste of brain cells. I hope you're not the latter, but based on past experience, I'm not holding my breath for anything intelligent from the Einstein-facade.
  
  One atheist at least had the imagination to figure, "That's all you asked for?" As if to say, if you had the power of the universe in your hands, why didn't you ask for something more substantial, like wealth or power? Is that about your speed?
  
  What a waste of that Homo sapiens body! But I guess I shouldn't judge. The last few hundred bodies of mine weren't all that interesting, either. No, for me the most recent really interesting lifetime before this one was 11,632 years ago.
  
  And go ahead, laugh it up fuzzball. If I remember correctly, you were one of the ones who didn't make it out of that disaster, eleven and a half millennia ago. And I shudder to think where you'll be in another 11,632 years. Probably still poking fun at things you don't understand. Doh!
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I would call it one of many such probable and possible events that can and will occur in nature.
  
  Let me get this straight, you are claiming that you summoned the powers of a god to part the sea of snarled traffic on a busy freeway so that you alone may traverse it unfettered, and you somehow believe this can turn into an intelligent discussion?
  
  Yeah, thanks for the personal insults.
  reply report
  60
  Woman Of Courageposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lone77, Thanks for sharing your great testimony. God is truly miracle worker and it was God who intervened.
  reply report
72
getitriteposted 14 years ago
I think we'll just be dead, and the dead are not gonna 'find out' anything.
reply report
73
Kangaroo_Jaseposted 14 years ago
Ok, so, I got my own bloody coffee..................but who is bringing donuts?
reply report
1. 56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just tell me where to send them.
  reply report
2. 74
  lone77starposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Donuts? My sister-in-law works for Dunkin Donuts. Just tell me what side of the planet you're on. I'm currently living in East Asia. Hope you have a big coffee pot.
  reply report
72
getitriteposted 14 years ago
To persist in a state of delusion, a person is forced to lie.
Lying is a main component of delusion.

The only problem is that delusional believers see their lies as the ultimate truth.

Mental Health continues to be astounding.
reply report
1. 0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I continue to be amazed when I hang out on these forums, at just how deluded religious-folk are (and some claim they 'aren't religious, but have a personal relationship)
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It continually amazes me that people who claim to know so much, don't know much about argumentation and debate. You don't get anywhere by slandering your opponent every time you speak.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  well, you haven't shown me anything to the contrary
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  My point is made!
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  how did I 'slander' you by making an observation?
  reply report
0
SirDentposted 14 years ago
Post and run.

Rom 3:4 let God be true, but every man a liar;
reply report
1. 0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Jeremiah 8:8 - the lying scribes of your bible had lying pens
  
  http://bible.cc/jeremiah/8-8.htm
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just to show more of what was written.
  
  Jer 8:7 Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD.
  Jer 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
  Jer 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sir Dent,
  How does this help?
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What can it hurt? The Word of God breaks the captives free, butonly if they want to be free.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Or are happy with their delusion.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  when it is understood yes, but when its obscured in symbolism that does not resonate, it does not.
  reply report
68
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
It's really a ridiculous topic!

If Santa Claus is not real, then how do you explain the santa claus in Macy's.
He's an actor, representing a story about St. Nicholas who did exist.
But he doesn't actually go down chimneys and puts presents on houses in Northern part of the world (but not in Asia). It's just a celebration of the Christmas Spirit.
What Christmas Spirit? The shopping?
No the one where you give and you get rewarded in the end. That exercise.
But do you need Santa Clause to spread that message?

ridiculous topic.

Grow up! G-d is a concept. An aspect of consciousness that makes available that which you can never access otherwise. People who do not even try will never reach it, people who try constantly sometimes do. But it is not something you can pin down. Now if you want to prove that there is intelligence in the natural world that's another thing. But proving G-d? or Disproving G-d. Waste of time.
reply report
1. 0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  this topic is asking why people LIE to defend their beliefs (which is hypocritical, because they also preach that lying is as bad as murder).
  
  But agree, it seems to be a pointless waste of time
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The point of the topic is actually to make believers look like liars. To point out all liars, then evolutionists, atheists, muslims, pastafarians, etc. . . would all have to be included.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  More specifically, it points out that believers lie when they attack evolution. Since most believers do not understand evolution, the topic title certainly is valid.
  
  Yes, if they were indeed spreading lies about evolution.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  how is Misha by the way?
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  yes, that is the correct point of the question asked. Why do individuals that preach that lying is sin up there with murder, blatantly lie about evolution. Are they misinformed, taught lies from liars, don't think they are lying even though they believe a twisted version?
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That is a characteristic and result of childhood religious indoctrination.
  
  It matters not to a believer whether you think they are lying or not, other than the fact they might be upset that they were called a liar, but the actual alleged fabrication in question, the explanation or claim they made is irrelevant.
  
  We are non-believers, we don't share those beliefs, hence we will be judged by their god in the afterlife and sent to hell.
  
  In other words, believers will conjure or propagate anything that might threaten the foundations of their beliefs, and since they know that their god is on their side and will deal with the infidels all in good time, they need not worry about what they say. Any ole' thang will do.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  yeah, I've been called Beelzebub, evil, possessed, a liar, slandering, deceived by satan, etc by these 'believers' that get really offended if I'm direct and I haven't even stooped to their name-calling.
  
  And yes, they cannot interpret a question correctly, without getting all upset and going on a rant about something else
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  no, as per usual, you miss the point entirely - maybe it would be less painful to bang my head against a brick wall than post on these forums?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I will answer why people Lie to defend their beliefs. People do that because we like to avoid changing our paradigm. The massive rewiring that will result consumes so much energy. Food will not go to flab, but instead to the brain. Habits will have to change. People lie to defend what they believed because they are conserving energy. Now, there is a difference between defending your understanding of the world and lying to yourself. More often than not, creationists as well as atheists are blindsided by their beliefs. But of you see a logic or feel a truth that makes sense to you or that resonates regardless of being challenged by brad pit or whoever, no amount of convincing will make you back off from that belief system. At some point, there is no point in forcing a person to believe otherwise. No point.
  
  More often that not, creationists have a different world view from say an atheist. They really have a biblical reality and cannot swing to see things through the lens of another. Atheists are the same way, they cannot see how a biblical reality has its own function and logic that they will NEVER fathom but makes sense to those who believe.
  
  I always wish, and this is just a wish that we would all wake-up to see that the truth occupies all kinds of minds. It disguises itself in many garments but it manages to show up in all camps.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You might ask the relatives of Jim Jones followers if they wished they had tried harder to dissuade their family members from believing in that man of god. I would have considered that a worthy point. But that is just my opinion.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I would have added that even madness has its truths...although less accessible.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  at last, someone answers the question.
  
  I must say, that after so much time wasted on these forums, that I agree with your conclusion - it is a pointless waste of time trying to change people's minds.
  
  Most people have debated about evolution on here, when I was wondering why people lie to defend their beliefs, when it goes against their beliefs
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I know, right. glad you're relieved.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  this whole thread went on multiple tangents about unrelated things like sacrifice, miracles, non-denominational christians and more
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  it always does when you put creationist on the subject matter. I'll post one just to see how many people jump on it. See you there.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  well, I do marvel at how I believed all this creationism stuff for years - I was indoctrinated into christianity, and years later, people are spouting the same old stuff. There are a few evolutions since though - many no longer believe in the devil, hell, a world-wide flood, a literal interpretation of genesis....
  
  I'm curious as how people (including seemingly intelligent people) can be so close-minded with beliefs, but not actually what their irrational beliefs are - any hubbers that try to shed some light on this theme?
  
  These forums are so frustrating. But they do remind me that I never want to believe in christianity again. So much nonsense, that I must not let my parents upset me next week when we see them (as my mother can't stop preaching irrational nonsense)
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  there is evidence of evolution happening at the same rate as we speak. As a matter of fact that was a theme two years ago in discovery. We weren't here 70 years ago, so we cannot visually compare but for one thing, people are getting taller. There's autism too which is a genetic adaptive response to the modern environmental influences. The Intense world theory. so we are evolving.
  
  But beliefs are irrational. They are there as an interim for understanding. Most people do not have the time to try to understand even their own beliefs. It is a matter of priority. Why would they bother to reconfigure their belief system. It's hard enough to make both ends meet.
  
  Christianity stands for something more, it survives because it has a great tagline. LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. very powerful line. People want to associate with it in the same way Macintosh sells Think Different.
  
  Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Powerful line. all else is details.
  
  For Islam it is There is No G-d but G-d.
  
  For Hinduism, it is TAT VAM ASI, That is you.
  
  For Buddhism it is In loving kindness.
  
  These are what captures the hearts of men and they gravitate to these truths like moths to flame. If Christianity is no longer resonating, it only means you need a new mantra.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  yes, I think autism is evolving too. My boy and I are both on the spectrum.
  
  Blame it on my Asperger's but I've always been one for truth. Christianity is some feel good stuff mixed in with some crazy stuff - not truth.
  
  I have studied science, and I find it so irritating when people spout complete nonsense about evolution (amongst other themes) & then attack the complete nonsense, which people believe. But I bother arguing with people, because I care more about truth than hurting people's feelings by criticising their irrational beliefs.
  
  Any hubs you know of this beliefs are irrational theme?
  
  I never considered religion as having marketing slogans before. Did you have a hub on that? Sales & marketing strategies of religion?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  beliefs are not rational. if they were rational, they will be called understanding or knowledge. If you believe that there is no G-d, that is a belief too because in truth how can you disprove something that you cannot quantify or observe? You could weave math around G-d, that every number came from orbits of zero and still that does not prove that there is a G-d, only that value begins at no value and progresses endlessly to infinite value.
  
  Logic and Belief just does not belong in the same continent. They are two different exercises happening in different parts of the brain. Their function is different for the human being. A person believes in place of understanding.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I like science because I like understanding and gaining knowledge. Beliefs have only pseudo 'understanding & knowledge'. These themes would make good hubs if you haven't written about it already. I like your line of thinking about it.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  really it is an individual exercise, some people cannot do science because they are just not wired that way. Its a matter of what the brain can handle.
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "I never considered religion as having marketing slogans before. Did you have a hub on that? Sales & marketing strategies of religion?"
  
  I think a philosophy textbook introduced me to the idea.
  I forgot the title it was ages ago when I read it.
  
  Judaism introduced ETHICS and the next movement was Christianity was LOVE and the concept of forgiveness which is a big psychological need.
  
  Religious groups are mainly and always been a business selling "truths". You could say that or you could say religions are the business of ideologies. You pay to have a worldview. it's called tithing. Now you can choose to get free service, but those who badly need guidance really pay to have it. There is money in the system, why because schools are not offering these ideologies in the course code. So what happens, more religious groups vying for members invalidating each other because they want the followers. It has been this way ever since the first Jewish Priest said you cannot eat until I bless the sacrifice to G-d.
  reply report
68
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
That said, it does not invalidate the message.

We need ethics to live as human beings.
We need love to live peacefully.
These truths are free and they have champions.
But people have to eat, so there. man cannot live on bread alone but on every word that G-d speaks...this is true. You could really make a living out of it.

But don't kill the message, just stop paying the messengers.
reply report
1. 0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ethics and values are important . Morals are made by religion
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Morals are made by people. Religion is man's attempt to ritualize transcendence. You cannot ritualize transcendence because each has a unique path.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  religion is made by people too, so yes, correct
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I however do believe in G-d. I believe in a G-d that transcends religion and description. It is an experience that people stumble upon and it cannot be verbalized other than G-d. This is what luminaries talk about constantly. Nirvana et all. But then those who are just mesmerized by the light, package it in bento boxes and sell it for 10% of your assets.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  so does anyone else believe in the same G-d that you do?
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  so how do you know you have the same G_d? What is this G_d like?
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  BS!
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Because there is only one God. Many interpretations still the one God.
  
  In summary and very briefly...
  
  The universe and every thing in it are expressions of...and in and of this God.
  
  You don't even need to call it God because that might limit ones understanding due to the traditional understanding.
  
  Not separate, just seems that way. No beginning, no end. An infinite ever changing cycle of infinite expressions that cannot be understood in its entirety with a finite mind. Finite being the perceptions that filter our experience with the true nature of our existence.
  
  While in its essence it is unchanging, it is ever changing in its expressions.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  yes...and yet we didn't really describe what it is. how about this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tRdLD6v … re=related
  
  what the hey is that? that's mathematically generated. what is it really out there?
  reply report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Haha yep
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why must there be only one god? Is that a rule or something?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  it's just a way of championing the idea, that there is harmony in creation. it is of one source. which is plausible.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I understand. If there was a Mrs. God all hell would break loose. Wait a minute.......!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  actually the Jews said that... that indeed was why all hell broke lose. the bride of god shattered into a million pieces and G-d's light was lost in darkness causing the distortions we observe in creation--hell.
  
  Oh wait, you knew that.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course! There are many gods, but most are not concerned with playing games with mortals, much less being worshiped by them.
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Spinoza's god.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I prefer a goddess!
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  oh i see...how very apt to the snake, the consort of the goddess in mythology.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! I'm beginning to believe you really are psycho....er, I mean psychic!
  report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  i think psychics are a bit psycho too.
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course you do!
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, you should see my wife!
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Goddess of all Goddesses I'm sure!
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Haha no there are no rules. Rules are made up as man evolves. In the essence of all things though is what is unchanging. That pure potential. So if you want more Gods go for it. hehe
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Buddha? Jesus? How the hey do I know and who cares?
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  you said you believe in G-d. What does this involve? How do you know if others have the same beliefs as you. Are your beliefs not irrational?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It involves believing that there is a Higher Consciousness at work in my consciousness, one that exceeds my lifetime and is within me but is also at work outside of me. They are not rational because I cannot prove to you that I am experiencing it. It is a feeling not a thinking.
  
  How can you judge is someone if feeling love in the same way you are? you can't. You can compare notes but you cannot prove it. Is your pulse racing when you see this person? Does your heart beat faster...see it could be stress too. the physical evidence of love as an experience is something you can prove but the actual feeling of love is largely a testimonial kind of thing, you just gotta trust that person is not pulling your leg. You can however measure PEA and so on and so forth but how is love being experienced by that person? How can you prove a subjective experience is similar to the next? Studies show that monks who meditate show activity in the PFC. But it does not show what they see in their mind's eye. It is a feeling not a thinking. You feel G-d and so therefore, you cannot apply logic to prove G-d exists. G-d is a concept that cannot adequately be accessed by human words.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ok, so you are concluding that there is some supernatural being but you can't define it, nor do you worship it? You are saying there is something more than the physical world that is not explained by any current religion or worldview?
  
  And if you had to be given a label, would you be considered agnostic theist?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  it's not supernatural, its natural. I wouldn't call it that too. I would say it is just a larger self. I think, I'd be quite simply a believer of G-d. But not the kind of G-d that has a magic finger or has a finger. As my six year old summarized it, "So G-d is not a person. G-d is more than everything but is also everything. G-d does not have a face."
  As Joseph Campbell puts it: "It has not been tainted by the human tongue." I cannot describe it. It is a feeling of absolute one-ness with all truths, and you get to that point briefly and you cannot stay there but you remember it, and that memory gives you lasting peace.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's why you are afraid to spell god, because it's natural not superstition, right? Seriously!
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think what you say is possible, but I don't see the point in entertaining such an idea, as I don't respect this entity/life force whatever anyway, as it didn't have enough intelligence to distinguish between good people & horrible people.
  
  I think we're all hard-wired to 'feel' sometimes there has to be some greater purpose - hence the inventions of gods.
  
  If I had to believe in something, I would go with your version over all organised religion, but then again, I am not afraid of this thingy whether imaginary or real. I don't give it credit for things I don't understand.
  
  You sound like you have respect for this thingy you cannot define, with calling it G-d
  
  I'm agnostic atheist, and only about 1% of me thinks maybe this thingey exists. But worshipping it or respecting it or whatever achieves nothing, so why bother?
  
  I certainly no longer believe in the christian god (and all these other gods). I'm like Darwin - no longer believe in the supernatural that I formerly believed it, but can't be 100% it doesn't exists. Darwin said about the christian revelation, 'there was no revelation'. I agree with him.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  well good people and horrible people. that's a big topic. I always say bad is a volume of good. you switch it up in win-win, that's good. you switch it down to no-win that's bad. good and bad are extremes of outcome.
  
  Fear of G-d is mistranslated.
  
  Awe, awe of G-d.
  
  (fear mongering is a classic crowd control method, once again it has nothing to do with what the luminaries experienced in their awakening, they if not anything liberated people from fear in their immediate lifetimes, but the successors not quite getting there once again used fear to acquire influence they couldn't in inspiration)
  
  also you are talking about the modern Christianity god...totally not the same as the G-d of Yeshua (Jesus). "Our Father" is a code.
  
  Our Father who art in Heaven (Our Source, in the mind)
  Holy be thy Name (Transcendent Truth invokes this power)
  Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done (Your Reign comes when Desire is done)
  On Earth as it is in Heaven (In the Body as in the Mind)
  Give us this day our daily bread (be mindful only of today's needs)
  and forgive us our sins
  as we forgive those who sin against us ( focus on the good of the present not the past)
  lead us not into temptation
  but deliver us from evil ( May the hidden spark be recovered from us)
  
  It is just saying that to invoke manifestation, be one in mind and body. be aware of your desire and act according to it. Because in mysticism, DESIRE is the first emanation of G-d.
  report
  84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Haha
  reply report
68
ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago
G-d is a belief. That the essence of G-d cannot be defined. It is just like I would never write my name as Cecelia because I believe that the "i" is more accurate phonetically. But you can call it superstition because there's really no real reason. heck, yeah!
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I suppose that makes sense to you. It just strikes me as a bit eccentric, but that may be what you are trying to achieve. So okay!
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think we've established that I AM eccentric. Spelling it like that makes a statement. I'm not talking about the same thing, ya know.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, we haven't established that yet.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  really? what does a girl do to be called eccentric these days, wear a dead cat on my head?
  reply report
66
arthritickneeposted 14 years ago
God created evolution.

Everyone happy now????
reply report
75
Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago
Well thats a matter of opinion and ...lol

God is all good (IMO)
reply report
77
tom_catonposted 14 years ago
wow. i really can't believe this battle rages on still (by battle I mean this particular thread).

I remember it being a wee thread of 20 or so posts, last I checked there were about a hundred and it was getting a bit repetitive already, and now there are over a thousand??? 'the hell happened?

Exactly what has anyone got to gain by this anyway? Clearly, and I mean quite clearly, nobody is going to be moved from their personal views, which interestingly enough have little to do with the original question posed by the author of the thread. So er...

You lot go that way, and you lot go the other!
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What is really weird is how those who have nothing to add to the discussion feel it is necessary to complain about the length of the thread.
  
  Don't like it, don't read it.
  reply report
  77
  tom_catonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  oh I found it thoroughly interesting to begin with, it just seems kind of pointless now no?
  reply report
2. 84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Haha
  
  Only those who engage will know. Who knows? Are there rules to how long a thread can go? If they are having fun (if thats what they are having) why spoil it.
  reply report
3. 0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  yeah, most people haven't attempted to answer the question. I'm amazed it has over 1000 posts, & I started the thread
  reply report
  77
  tom_catonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'd be proud if I were you, it's an amazing response regardless! Mind you, a topic as touchy as this, it's pretty easy for a thread to descend into war of sorts
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yep - 1000 posts and still not one creationist has offered one piece of valid evidence for their many assertions. Kinda proves the point of the thread about them telling lies I guess.
  
  Well done Bailey Bear.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Once again it would seem that you cannot see things right in front of you because you are just as indoctrinated by your atheism as you claim others to be in religion. You don't know any more about where life comes from than anyone else and cannot prove in a laboratory experiment your assertions about the beginning of this world or this universe. Sure you have educated guesses based upon a mixture of facts and conjectures but unless you were there, at the beginning you cannot prove your conjectures.
  There was a time when people of Science believed in spontaneous generation or the thought that living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances. Now it is the more complicated abiogenesis. So Science has been wrong in the past and I have no doubts that they will be proved wrong in the future. Out of nothing nothing comes. Abiogenesis has proved nothing to the contrary. It is a fatal flaw in atheism that cannot be surmounted.
  We may not have proved anything to you and I didn't expect to because you are closed to the possibility. But the sad thing is your beliefs in no God are no more scientific as mine is that there is a God. You are just hiding under the umbrella of Science to prove what Science was never designed to prove.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I spent years indoctrinated with christianity - I believed in your invisible god for years. I also studied for a science degree.
  I have more confidence in science than all the garbage that you and your blinded ones spout.
  
  Science is more than educated guesses - you don't even have that
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Funny how closed minds like yours often try to accuse others.
  
  Once again you are jumping in with your preconceptions and judgements. I do not reject the idea of a god because I don't believe in it, I suspend judgement until the issue is proved to my satisfaction or there is some weight of evidence for the existence of such a being. None so far of course.
  
  There is no such thing as a belief in science, it is a PROCESS that uses reason to discover stuff and how things work.
  
  Reason uses the overwhelming weight of evidence for evolution of all life on earth - Creationism just talks hot air and bullsh+t.
  
  Stop blowing air and bring some proof of your Creationist theory to the thread - a lie is deliberately trying to convince someone of what you know is not true. If you have no evidence then you know you are lying.
  reply report
  77
  tom_catonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ....and somehow I've become a part of it.....
  reply report
59
from planet earthposted 14 years ago
I would like to touch on the first post in this thread. I'm not gonna go through this whole thread so if I am off mark then please redirect me.
As for the religious people lying about their faith. There is a difference between being honest and telling the truth. It is possible to be honest without telling the truth. For instance if my parents taught me that 1+1 was 4 and I told you one plus one was four I would be honest but not truthful.
reply report
1. 84
  pennyofheavenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is no absolute truth so I do agree.
  reply report
75
Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago
..And the lion will lie down with the lamb...(Bible)

Yes I believe animals have spirits, and that someday we will know and recognise them.
reply report
59
Wintermystposted 14 years ago
Ok I will give it a shot here. Most christians actually believe in creationism so to them, they are telling the truth. It isn't something they feel is made up, to them it is a fact. Right or wrong in anyone elses book it is their fact. Therefore, to them it isn't lying. Lying is something someone does when they know it is in fact an untruth. They don't.

If they are questioned and they answer and someone tells them it is a lie is when the trouble starts. It isn't a truth for atheists and agnostics. I would like to point out though not everyones truth makes it anothers lie. You can beat this dead horse to death with that stick. Sorry folks, I don't want to argue these points just wanted to put in my two cents.
reply report
1. 77
  tom_catonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's a fair point, and I agree. There's no point in "but"ing about it, no point in saying that "obviously your case is wrong.." or whatever.
  
  In the end nobody will know for certain until they die, or they'll not know anything at all, depending on who is right after all.
  reply report
2. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ignorance has no truth!
  reply report
  77
  tom_catonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  but the same could be said of atheists!
  
  i'm loathed to defend religious types but my view of atheism was one of tolerance, the ability to accept somebody else's point of view as their own.
  
  I don't agree with shoving ones view into on another's faces, and that applies to religious and non religious people alike.
  
  What was it that drove you away from religion originally Randy?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not an atheist. I consider myself agnostic since I don't know if there are gods or not. And neither does anyone else for that matter.
  
  What drove me away from religion? Religionists for the most part and lack of any evidence of any god, especially the Christian one.
  
  Besides this, I cannot fathom a supreme being who would choose those who claim to speak in his name. Why would he pick the most ignorant and illogical of individuals to represent him? This doesn't help at all.
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Randy. Can't understand why you use a powerful religious symbol like a snake if what you say is true. Kinda Freudian, don't you think? Shows a schizoid centrism. Druids know snakes pretty well. Definitely spiritual Oedipus Complex. Beaten with scriptures when you were young?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The avatar was purely accidental. My first hubs were about snakes and I chose one of my photos at random. But it seemed to mean something to others so I have kept it. But the main reason I now use the king snake is it keeps some from following me just because they like my avatar.
  
  I've heard others say using a pic of a handsome guy or sexy girl boosted their follower numbers. I had rather obtain followers because of my hubs, not my avatar.
  
  I don't consider snakes, used as a religious symbol, any more powerful than dogs,cats, or any other creature. That would be ridiculous.
  
  And no, not beaten with scripture either. Amused and disgusted would be closer to it.
  reply report
61
Buttonpatchposted 14 years ago
Why do creationists tell such outrageous LIES to attack evolution?
I have laughed throughout reading this thread but I must say, look at the question you posed. People who are put on the defensive immediately will seldom answer in a way that would satisfy someone such as yourself. The only response I have is a question.
Why do evolutionists tell such outrageous lies to attack creationism?

In the larger scale of things, there really isn't much viable proof of either one. When my biology professor said, "There is no G*d, pray to the plants and the sun". I raised my hand and was given permission to speak. All I said was this. "Remember this comment is coming from the mouth of a man who just introduced us to the fluid mosaic cell wall theory as if it were a fact instead of a theory. It's easier to believe in G*d than it is to believe in that." The whole point being that you can't see either one, and all you can do is give evidence of things you do see that you believe were caused by either the cell processes or by the entity.

Why anybody gets radical over either one is beyond me, and you will probably notice that I said this without telling you anything I believe and without insulting you either.
reply report
1. 60
  Woman Of Courageposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Buttonpatch, I love your response. Funny, the question you asked was the first thing which came to my thoughts when I first saw that title on this thread. God bless you!
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
Evolutionist scientist claim that all the planets and moon are suppose to rotate in the same direction according their calculations, according their Big Bang theory. If, according to their theory “all” planets and “moons” in our Solar System must spin in the same direction, how do they account for the backward spin of the planets Venus and Uranus. All the moons of the various planets should revolve in the same direction; at lease 11 revolve “backward” According to the Big Bang Theory this is impossible. It takes a masterful architect and designer to place these worlds among the other worlds and make them rotate against the grain! “EVOLUTION” IS THE BIG& OUTRAGEOUS LIE!
reply report
1. 60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly which school did you go to ?
  
  When they were explaining the difference between Physics and Evolution did you have the day off or what ?
  
  There is no correlation between the two sciences whatsoever other than the theory that life may have arrived on this planet from outer space but there again that brings in Astronomy and Cosmology into the discussion.
  
  As for the Big Bang, watch any firework display where there is an explosion and watch as everything flies off in all directions away from the centre.
  
  When two bodies collide, assuming they don't break into itsy bitsy pieces (please notice I'm trying to keep it simple for you) they will go off in different directions. That's Newton's Law's of Motion... Physics... it is possible that during the collision, if it were a glancing blow, then a degree of alternate spin maybe applied (concentrate the next time you play Pool).
  
  Nothing whatsoever to do with Evolution of Life, which in spite of the CAPITALS is not a lie but a living breathing scientific fact, although I sometimes wonder why we bother !
  reply report
  61
  Buttonpatchposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It would be unworthy of G*d to creat an ever changing environment and then create things that couldn't evolve to meet the changes and new challenges that were presented to them.
  reply report
2. 60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That is incorrect, no scientist ever made that claim. Retrograde planetary motion is a well-known phenomena and is based on the formation of our solar system.
  
  Don't you think a better question to ask is why would a god spin those planets in a different direction?
  
  So, why would a designer do such a thing? What's the reason?
  reply report
  61
  buffalo49posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I believe the "retrograde" effect is caused by the differing orbital times and when one planet, say mercury, orbits the sun 3 or 4 times for every time the earth orbits the sun, mercury would seem to be moving in the opposite direction, but that is only in relation to the earth, not the sun. I believe all the planets in our solar system orbit in the same direction. That assumes that "Nibiru" doesn't exist. But with a 3600 earth year orbit, we'll just have to wait a while and see if it does exist and what effect its path through the solar system has.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, all planets "orbit" the sun in a counter-clockwise direction if viewed from the suns "North" pole. Most of the planets "rotate" in a counter-clockwise direction as viewed from the same reference point, however Venus "rotates" in a clockwise direction, hence a 'retrograde' rotation.
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
I attend the University of The Old and New Testament, my text book is the King James bible. I must have been off the day they explained difference between Physic and Evolution, thank “God” for that, because if I had been there I would be just as confuse as you are on this most important issue.

The two sciences are inter related the whole discussion on evolution comes down to who is responsible for man being on this earth. The controversy is creation vs. evolution, man’s origins. How can we discuss one without the other? The whole point of the augment is about creation. Big Bang or God! We must start from the beginning. In the beginning God!

You said that evolution is a fact! Please give me some of the facts so I can see them for myself.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is your problem dude. See - the bible is full of religious nonsense and majick - not science. There is no controversy. Evolution is widely accepted in most educated countries, by the entire scientific community and by the bulk of religious political parties.
  
  Only people such as your self do not accept it. Try reading a few science books instead of the fairy tale - you will soon see. Ignorance is no excuse.
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572
  reply report
2. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, this explains your confusion about science. What "real" university did you attend? Perhaps you would be better off discussing science with your biblical alumni. They most likely will agree with your "educated guesses".
  reply report
3. 72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You come to a forum to debate, and admit that all you have is an "education" from a book of superstitions written by ignorant Bronze Age goat herders, who believed that DAYS were possible before the creation of the sun, and that the sun was actually created after the earth.
  
  You have zero credibility.
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
give me the facts oe evolution, just the facts sir!
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Follow the link I left and read about the facts.
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572
  http://hubpages.com/hub/creation-v-evolution
  reply report
2. 60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You want Facts Start Here
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB_6h3_UgCo
  
  It's not very long so your attention span shouldn't be too challenged.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When I saw this film by Attenborough, it made me think of George Lucas and Star Wars. He could have started it like one of the films: "Long, Long ago in a galaxay far, far away! Or possibly "Once upon a time." Making a fancy movie doesn't prove to be fact the faith based assumption that life can just appear from non-living matter. And could it be that all life is related in some way because it was made by the same creator?
  I did learn something, however. If a person has an accent and a pleasant voice, he can sell snow to Eskimos.
  reply report
  60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are a sad, sad man and it shames you to try and belittle a man who has dedicated his life to the science of life.
  
  Sir David Attenborough is an Internationalal broadcaster and naturalist. His career as the respected face and voice of natural history programmes has endured for more than 50 years.
  
  He is best known for writing and presenting the nine "Life" series, in conjunction with the BBC Natural History Unit, which collectively form a comprehensive survey of all life on the planet and he has made many programmes establishing the proof of Darwin's theories.
  
  He is also a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Fellow of various Zoological societies world wide.
  
  So please, before you make a complete prat of yourself, back off until you have something positive or constructive to add to the discussion.
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Some people spread, and believe dogma on all sides, which their words show they little understand.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure who you are defending here. I will assume it is me. Thanks!
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All of those credentials makes it even more "sad" that he would be promoting the totally unsubstantiated lie that life in this universe can come from anything at all but that which is living in the first place. And you have fallen for it!
  By the way, when you are sarcastic and condescending, it is o.k. because you are a man of "Science." But when I am, it's sad. It sounds like a double standard to me!
  reply report
  75
  frogdroppingposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But ... you're promoting an unsubstantiated belief. How are you and David Attenborough different?
  
  Forget religion/science for a moment - what have you done lately that matches his ability to give back to the planet we live on?
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The difference is he claims to be a man of pure Science and I never have. And so his followers take his word as fact, even if it is totally unsubstantiated.
  And to answer your question I try to add something to this world every day that I live. I may not have the credentials that he has but anything you do that makes life a little better for another person to live is good. Also, I can name literally thousands of people of faith who have done just as much, if not more for this world. Some of them, are Scientists, teachers, doctors, lawyers etc. And they do it in the name of the deity you choose not to believe in.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  People have accomplished good things in the name of some god or another for thousands of years. Yours gets no more credit than theirs did. Unless you can prove otherwise. of course.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You totally ignored my comment on Attenborough.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your comment was made to another poster, at least you quoted another. Besides, your comment had nothing of substance which Merlin and others didn't respond well to.
  
  But really, you dare to criticize someone you are so far beneath in knowledge about this subject, that now I do indeed believe you are a real preacher. Sorry I doubted you.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry if I responded to the wrong person, but it would seem that you both worship at the feet of this man. I have nothing against him personally. I'm sure he is a nice man and I don't doubt that his intelligence is far superior to mine. But he can be wrong, just as the most ignorant of men can be right at times. He is not a god. Remember, you don't believe in gods.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I worship nothing or no one, GT. The difference in you and I. But I can tell the difference between facts and fallacy, something you cannot do. Did you inherit your religion like so many of your peers? Were you indoctrinated at an early age into the christian cult? Or was your present beliefs based on something you weren't exposed to until late in life?
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When a person becomes a Christian has nothing to do with it just like being indoctrinated into your cult later in life has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. I can name several persons who were atheists/agnostics, like you who became Christians later in life. By the way, I can use the term cult for your belief system because, besides it obvious religious conotations, it can also mean: "An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers." Your veneration of Science is cultlike.
  report
  60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What is it with you and your constant misuse of the word Worship when you relate it to science is it some sort of sad attempt to belittle the subject ?
  
  Science is not a religion nor do men of science consider themselves deities and I cannot see why you should consider it in any other way unless it is some sort of vain derogatory attempt on your part to destroy.
  
  Can’t speak for anyone else but I for one certainly do not worship this or any other man, I have huge respect for David Attenborough, someone who has dedicated his entire life’s work to help us understand the natural world but you would know that if you were to look at any of his work.
  reply report
  75
  frogdroppingposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You don't claim? Your profile states exactly what you are. Your hubname? You don't have followers that believe what you teach?
  
  As do I - and many many others. And please feel free to highlight those that do more than the non-religious. Having faith is not mutually exclusive with giving and the possession of good morals. To say otherwise is offensive.
  
  I can think of one person right now that has given me more help than anyone has done in years. More (by a long long mile) than some of my friends that are religious. There's no faith or belief involved - just an honest decency to give. And believe you me - I've needed help like never before in the last three years and of those that stepped up - none were religious.
  
  You presume.
  
  Do you see the difference here? I don't. This is a roundabout style debate. Never ending.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Or a god to the ignorant! Ask Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Jones, or Jim Bakker.
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Karl Marx, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong. Adolf Hitler. Bet my list is longer than yours.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Oral Roberts, Godtalk......
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I only wish I had half the money that all of these people have. Then I could get my own Television show and be even more annoying.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well that's easy, GT! Just find followers who trust you enough to send you money for your version of what your god wants. Convince them you are your god's personal spokesman and unless they do as you say, they will burn in hell forever. Works every time on those who don't know any better. At least it does here in the bible belt.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Seems to work for the Scientists too. We pay them very well for their theories ,even if unsubstantiated.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They do not claim to save souls, GT. And their work is open for examination and substantiation or not by their peers. You have none for your particular cult.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  As long as those peers don't try to go against the absurd notion of abiogenesis. Then they are ostracised.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Tsk, tsk, Godtalk! It's not good for god's spokesman to make up untruths. They are ostracized because they are wrong and for no other reason. The findings of those you say are ridiculed are open to examination too. And perhaps you can tell me why scientists are so keen on having false theories accepted as truth.
  
  Just to prove your silly little deity doesn't exist? They would go to so much trouble to have the smartest, best educated men in the world to lie so your little cult would look bad? What would they have to gain by such an almost impossible charade? I really want to hear your reasons for this. Could it be SATAN? LOL!
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Arrogant men don't need Satan. They have enough pride of their own to dismiss the evidence for creation, the creation itself. The watch needs the watchmaker, the car needs a manufacturer, the universe cries out that it was designed. How absurd to think otherwise.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are equating arrogance with stupidity, GT! You flatter yourself, your silly little deity is not worth a scientist becoming a laughingstock among his peers. I know you cannot understand this, but there is no conspiracy among scientists to spoil your business. Your god is not important enough for this ever to happen. The truth hurts you, GT! Is that the best answer you can give?
  
  Again, why would scientists go to such great lengths to ruin your little scenario. Do you think they are threatened by you and your cult? I mean, look what a hard time you have with us mere writers. Imagine trying to get your BS past the smartest scientists in the world, telling them you know more than they. Yep, arrogance is your own particular vice.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  At least a few of the smartest Scientists in the world aren't arrogant to deny at least the possibilty that there is a god. And I know, you will ask who these Scientists are. Well when you do I'll name some.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And for the record, I don't seem to be having the hard time that you think I am. You can't disprove God. Some of the greatest minds in the world have attempted to do so, only to be answered by men of faith with equal abilities. What makes you think that reading your condescending angry talk will change things?
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Because you cannot prove there is or isn't many gods, can you?
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It was never my intention to prove to you or anyone else here, in this forum, that my God is the God you should follow. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in one true God and that all other gods are idols. But to convince someone in a forum with the title it has is an act of futility. I do believe that once you open yourself to the possibility that there is a god, then there are many things which can convince you that the God of the Bible is the true God. But my purpose in writing is to refute the claim of some adherents of the evolutionary theory that it holds all the secrets of life and the universe as we know it. It clearly does not.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, delusional people can convince themselves of anything, that there is a god or thousands of gods. You ask for proof of evolution and I ask for proof of god.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just as delusional people can convince themselves that there isn't a god.
  report
  67
  simeonvisserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who claimed that it holds all the secrets? We are learning something new every day. Why don't you write a hub that explains why creationism explains everything a lot better, if you don't wish to do it in this forum thread? Surely, if it is the truth, it should be relatively easy to argue in its favor, right? Many who advocate your opinion resort to faith and attacking evolution rather than constructively building a foundation for a creationist viewpoint.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good idea. Thanks for the tip. I think I will. By the way who started attacking first? I refer you to the name of this forum.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think it is because creationists say scientists are trying to prove god doesn't exist using evolution. But none of the creationists give a reason why they would lie to disprove an imaginary being.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Also, it is by their their belief that given enough time and enough research that we will find out how to get life from non-life that they think that they hold the secrets to existence, or soon will do so. That applies to the imperfect fossil record as well. They just can't admit that the reason for their failure so far is that their theory is flawed in the first place.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good Lord! You think evolutionary theory says this? No wonder you are so angry. It says no such thing. Who told you it did?
  
  There are only 2 options here.
  
  1. You actually think evolutionary theory says this - in which case - I think you have duty to educate yourself before becoming so angry. I am certain your God would not want you to come across as you are doing - it gives Him a bad name.
  
  or
  
  2. You do know what evolutionary theory states and have chosen to demonstrate the original question in person.
  
  If your answer is 2 - Perhaps you could tell us why?
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I said "some" adherents. Once again you chose to ignore what I said and made up your own lies.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I've never said there are no gods, I am agnostic, not atheist. There may be lots of gods for all we know and you have no proof otherwise, do you? I've seen no evidence of a god or gods and until I do I will continue to question their existence.
  
  I really wish there were gods, at least some which were not so cruel or redundant as the one you push. I might go for one which made sense.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  For the record, I think some Scientists are arrogant, but not all. But I'm not equating their arrogance with stupidity. They are extremely bright men.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then answer the question, preacher! Why would scientists attempt such a great hoax? For what purpose? Many do not care about your god either way. They have nothing to gain by such a hoax. They have much more important things to do with their time.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, like trying to make life from nothing?
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, you obviously do not have an answer to the question, GT! Many of you "creationists" claim evolution is wrong but have no reason why scientists would go to such great lengths to lie about it. At least you could make something up like you usually do instead of ignoring the question.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think that some sincerely believe what they are preaching. To others it is simply a way to explain away any supernatural being because to confirm Him would be to admit that they have someone greater than themselves to answer to. Atheistic evolutionists are like people who belong to a religious cult. The cult honors Science above all. And no one who dares say they are wrong is spared their wrath.
  Someone has said it before and I think they are right: This forum has gone on much too long. We should all just agree to disagree.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah right! That's about as idiotic an answer as you could give, GT! Scientists not liking what they find so they concoct fake theories to cover themselves. And other scientists backing them up in the charade. This is why your brand of religion causes so much trouble in the world and the reason I could never swallow the BS you guys vomit from the pulpit.
  
  I pity your followers who look to you for truth if this is the best reason you can give for casting aspersions on men with superior intellect. I am through with you!
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You were through with me long before I even came to this forum. You're mind was made up and you just wanted to use this to make fun of people. Well, continue your charade of looking for truth. I do hope you find it some day.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is no hope of you looking for truth! You detest it already!
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't claim to be an expert on why some scientists continue to proclaim a flawed theory to promote their ideas that there is no god. Maybe you can think of better ones.
  report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that this thread has gone on too long for you. You still have provided no evidence of any kind, bokloads of evidence that shows evolution is the way things happened and are happening has been provided.
  
  Good time for you quit this thread as you have run out of prevarications and you should also quit before you tip from being a misinformed believer into a liar for jesus.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are free to believe anything you like, but as I see it no one has won. Unless you want to lie for your scientists again and say it is an open and shut case about the origins of the universe and life.
  report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have never said that - and a theory is always open to update and rethinking. Creationism on the ohter hand is a straight forward lie - propogated by people like yourself in a last ditch attempt to dumb your followers down so that the jesus myth can be sold to them like any other product.
  
  If you really believed this nonsense you would be able to point us to one piece of real evidence of a single 6500 year old 'event' that put everything here - as you clearly can't do that then bow out and save your nonsense for your sheeple.
  report
  60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Have you ever in your life actually watched any of David Attenbourgh's Documentaries ? Including any on Darwin or the meaning of Life, or his attempts to explain how man is destroying his own world ?
  
  Or as usual are you just putting things down because you know no better ?
  reply report
  60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Even I would have to say , "God Forbid that day ever Comes !"
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I don't follow any of those men.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Didn't they have the same god you have?
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I believe that you need to look more into Jim Jones before putting him in the category of Christian. Jones was an avid reader as a child and studied Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Mahatma Gandi and Adolf Hitler carefully, noting each of their strengths and weaknesses. In 1951, Jones became a member of the Communist Party USA, and began attending meetings and rallies in Indianapolis. He became frustrated with what he perceived to be ostracism of open communists in the United States. This frustration among other things provoked him to ask himself how he could demonstrate his Marxism. He decided to infiltrate the church to promote his beliefs.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Aren't you promoting your beliefs in the church, GT? I've heard Jones speak. He didn't sound any different than many pentecostal preachers.
  
  Are you saying his faith in your god wasn't sincere? Now, now GT, casting doubt on a brother of the cloth's faith is a serious charge in the god business, isn't it?
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you read the Bible, which I know you don't, It says that in the last days there will be lots of people who will arise and say they are men of God when they aren't. We are not to follow these people and certainly aren't to praise them. What I said about Jones infiltrating the church came from a biography of his life and words. He and his followers speak for themselves. And the reason he sounded like a pentecostal preacher is because at one time he observed a faith healing service and saw that it attracted people and their money. He concluded from this that, with financial resources from such healings, he could help accomplish his social goals.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I have read the bible and still do on occasion, usually to catch believers in untruths.
  
  And Jones is no different than you with his beliefs. Perhaps you aren't quite so arrogant or self deluded as Jones, but you still have the "spokesman for god" syndrome. No hiding that.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It would seem that you have a "spokesman for Science" complex" so I guess that makes us even.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, we are not even, GT. I do not worship science, but I do appreciate what science has done for humanity. Look how we are able to talk back and forth because of science. Imagine what the world would be like today if only men of your cult were depended on for such things.
  
  Because of science we don't have to rely on a witch doctor or faith healer when our children get ill. It is nonsense you speak when you say evolution is false and scientists are making false claims just to refute your petty little god.
  
  If I felt as you do, I would refuse to use all things scientific because Satan might be using them to steal souls from god. Or do you depend on medicine and the conveniences science has brought us?
  
  Sure you do, but then you cast aspersions on those things which shows your imaginary deity to be just that. Pick and choose, the same way you use the scripture in your novel.
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
in your own words, give me the facts.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Dear me. Too lazy to read what I linked to huh? Typical. The facts would cover millions of pages and it is not practical to add a fossil to a forum page. You need to follow the link and educate yourself by examining the facts for yourself.
  reply report
2. 60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! So, you wish to go from not knowing a single thing about evolution to having us present the facts for you to peruse, even when you don't know a thing about evolution?
  
  Again, LOL!
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
give me just one fact of evolution
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Tell you what - as you are too lazy to read the wealth of facts and information I linked to - you give me one fact of your God existing and I will give you one fact of evolution.
  
  Deal?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I bet Roy doesn't know King James was gay! Any takers?
  reply report
2. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your knuckles don't drag the ground. Of course, I could be mistaken in your case. LOL!
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
come on man, you said evolution is a fact surey you can give me just one from you surely you a mountian evidence to prove your point.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But you haven't given a fact supporting your god's existence yet, Roy! What are you waiting for?
  reply report
2. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So - no facts to prove god exists then?
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
you know you can't prove that evolution is a fact, its only a very bad theory. if you had an.y facts you would have presented them by now, you don't have any, never did, never
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please stop telling untruths about me. I have added links to a massive collection of facts for you to peruse.
  
  The fact that you are too lazy to follow them and learn does not mean I am a liar.
  
  Thank you for not bearing false witness against me again.
  reply report
72
getitriteposted 14 years ago
That's why we must default to the bible, because it is full of "facts" For instance, the irrefutable "fact" that Jesus cursed the fig tree--a loving Jesus, that is.
reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
the bible is not taught as fact in school, but evolution is taught as fact. that is the problem they are a theory as fact to our children, why are they so afriad to set the bible next to evolution, because they know the bible has stood the test of time.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  2000 years vs 4.5 billion years?
  
  Sorry - lose again.
  reply report
2. 72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  He is sort of correct. I am afraid of teaching children the bible as fact. 2,000 years of witch hunts and wars is reason enough for me to be scared of this.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not to mention all of the unnecessary smiting that the bloodthirsty deity, so callously, commits.
  reply report
3. 72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
4. 60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps, it is because anyone who would have anything to say that would threaten the bible would be burned at the stake as a heretic. But, now that Christians are not allowed to do that anymore, the test of time may begin and it is unlikely your bible will last as long as it did.
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
shpuld any theory be taght as fact to our childern?
reply report
1. 72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution is taught as a Scientific Theory, which theories are you talking about?
  reply report
2. 60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, but theories are not taught as fact, had you gone to school, you would know that.
  
  Evolution is both fact and theory, hence it can be taught as such.
  
  Maybe, you should take the time to understand evolution before making comments about it. Don't you think it's a good idea to understand a concept if you're going to talk about it?
  
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
you yourselves admit its only a theory by not coming up with any evidence to the contrary, but theirs no reason to keep going on until you show me the prove, until then , i'll see you arould!
reply report
1. 60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Can we make the assumption you won't learn anything about evolution, until then?
  reply report
2. 60
  Druid Dudeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Pssst, Roy ol'boy. Everything changes, even God. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.
  reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 14 years ago
Another sick-and-tired religion thread that needs to die…?
reply report
1. 60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh How I so Agree With you !
  
  It's like trying to push water up hill. You'd think I'd know better by now !!!
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
why is it so for you to tell me what you belive and why you believe what "you" believe why must you send me to someone else.
reply report
1. 60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps I sent you there because he is one of the World's foremost experts on the subject and a renowned man of science.
  
  You could learn from him, as many of us have over many, many years. Besides he can explain it to you so much better than I ever could.
  I think I would resort to a very large stick and some very rude words.... However if you are not interested in learning stop wasting our time and go and annoy someone else.
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB_6h3_UgCoOK, i watched the video, now will you watch this one?
reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
sorry, I pull up your video, this is the video I intended to show .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMY0kR_7ZU4
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Do you know what the name used to promote this video means, Roy? Dawah means "invited to Islam." I didn't realize you were Muslim oriented. LOL! I bet you didn't either. You just keep on digging your hole deeper and deeper. Better just ease on out unless you research your "University Textbook" a little more.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just because a person is of another religion, doesn't mean that everthing they say is wrong. They happen to have it right that creation is a viable option to the existence of life.
  reply report
2. 60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  OK So I've watched it... however there are quite a few errors in both the logic and the honesty of the report.
  
  It seems to be some sort of exercise in reverse psychology trying to use Evolutionary evidence to disprove Evolution in favour of the creation story of Genesis. Very clever and I can see how it would impress the uninitiated and anyone who was looking for a reason, any reason to disbelieve Darwin.
  
  Trouble is, to a Naturalist it actually shoots itself in the foot within the first twenty seconds. Darwin was indeed troubled by the creationist assumption that all living things were created all at once, including all species and sub species with slight generic adaption and differences to suit their chosen habitat.
  
  If the biblical version of creation was true and God created all living things all at once then surely that would mean that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together, funny how they don’t get a mention in the bible at all.
  
  If the biblical story of creation were true what purpose would be served by fossils.... and why would someone trying to debunk Darwin and Evolution use them in their argument as the author of your video is trying to do ?
  
  If the biblical story of creation were to be believed then the Earth’s age is measured in mere thousands of years and not the millions of years we know it to be or are you now going to debunk Geology as well ?
  
  The difference between Science and Religion is we start with the words, “I Do not Know,” and then we go in search of the answers.
  Unlike Religion which starts “I was told to Believe so I do,” and therefore that is good enough.
  
  So be It... If that’s good enough for you Fine ! personally I don’t care, but know this it has never been good for me ever since as a kid when a friend of mine died I asked Why ? And a dumb assed priest told me that it was because God wanted my friend, again I asked why and was told I was too young to understand nor should I ever challenge the will of the almighty.
  
  Well I guess I never grew up because I still don’t understand and when I don’t understand I say “I Do Not Know” and go in search of the answers. My eyes and mind are open, people like Darwin, Attenborough, Newton and Hawking answer my questions when I ask.... What else can I say on the matter ?
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
I didn’t say anything about the man, good or bad all I said was that I watched the video and presented a counterpoint. This is something that evolutionist hate because they know that this false religion of evolution can’t stand up to scrutiny because its being debunked by some of the very people who once defended it. Instead of trying to protect this man’s honor, let’s dig deep into the facts and see if this man that you put on a pedestal and see if what he is preaching I truth or lies. The only way we can do that is to investigate his claims. If you thing that is wrong, than its you needs more schooling. Anyone that let someone instill their truth into them without investigating the claim of that person is durning an injustice to themselves no matter how smart or intelligent they might thing they are.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are wrong once more, Roy. We love a good laugh when the uneducated think they are making points with crap substituted for real facts. Especially when they do it in such an illiterate manner. Tell us another joke, please.
  reply report
2. 72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Do you see that you have determined that you are doing an injustice to yourself? My advice, to you, would be: Take your own advice.
  reply report
3. 60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are free to scrutinize anything from evolution. Please do so because no believer here has yet to present anything that actually scrutinizes the process. It would appear that there is no understanding of evolution amongst those who would attempt to refute it to defend their religious beliefs.
  
  We are awaiting your detailed critique on evolution.
  reply report
4. 60
  Druid Dudeposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Burn the witch!
  reply report
5. 60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Back up a bit Roy and breathe son....
  
  It was GodTalk I was responding to not you...
  
  My answer to your video is above.
  
  PS Evolution is a part of Natural Science... it is not a religion so please, stop refering to it as such.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Once again you don't understand how much faith it takes to get life from inorganic matter. Evolutionary theory stops being Science when it goes beyond the things it can substantiate with evidence.
  By the way, I thought that evolutionary theory didn't get into the area of how life got here in the first place. From your video, clearly it does.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's why it makes way more sense to believe that a God can create HIMSELF from fiat, then proceed to create everything else.
  
  Using this logic, you have shown me the light, and the error of my flawed and feeble reasoning. Good job!
  
  Praise Jeebus, in heaben!
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Once again you have shown your total lack of understanding of the Christian religion. Just like your eternal matter or energy didn't create itself, God has always been. How can a man of Science put himself in the same category of faith you claim that I have. Eternal matter/energy be praised!
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Again, GodTalk, would you please provide us with evidence of this "fact"
  
  And if my eternal matter has always existed just like God's eternal matter, just what then makes Him superior to me?
  
  Since He did not create His own eternal matter, why is He given credit for creating me--if I'm made up of eternal matter, as well?
  
  I mean you have just proved that God is God and NOT God at the same time. Great Job!
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What convoluted reasoning! How can something that is eternal create itself. If it is eternal then it is by definition uncreated. You are a man of science and yet continually postulate the claim that matter or energy is eternal. In this universe as we know it, how can that be. Every cause has something that caused it. You bulk at my designer, but all you can put in His place is something that has no life and no ability to think. Behold your god!
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the correction, however Goddunnit is just not the default that you desperately, desperately wish it to be.
  
  After you get through debunking evolution, could you and I put the bible through the same rigor that you have put evolution through, therefore solidifying your reason for having faith?
  
  And after tearing the bible apart, as you have done evolution, it should be clear to me that you have made the right choice--and you will have won me as a convert.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Once again I don't think the reason for me speaking here is to win anyone. I couldn't if I tried. My reason for writing is not to allow you to tear down everyone's faith in a God when clearly you don't have anything of substance to put in its place. And whether you choose to believe it or not, there is evidence in the design of this universe that it must certainly have a designer.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  No! you clearly want to see your nonsense taught as if it is some kind of education, on the same level as a proven Scientific Model. Or if your ID nonsense can't be taught in public schools, then you think evolution should not be taught either, because you think that evolution is actually less rational. This, my friend, is utterly absurd, and I'm thankful for everyone in this forum who has stood up to the likes of you--and the people all over the world who have stopped your ilk in their endeavor to expedite us back to the Dark Ages.
  
  Unless you can actually show irrefutable evidence of this designer, you are only desperately pleading.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Unless you show me evidence that this great universe with all of its wonders of nature has no designer, it would seem that your pleas are just as loud, and at at times angry.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, I don't think that creation should be taught in public schools because it could be taught by someone like you who has no concept of God. I also don't believe that you should try to teach your flawed theory of evolution as if it were the gospel truth beyond any disputation. It is clear that there is no evidence from the fossil record for any claims of one species evolving into another. And there is no evidence for the appearance of life from matter/energy. These are blind leaps of faith.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Are you suggesting that we completely remove both from the school curriculum?
  
  Just what would we gain from something like that?
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And you are castigating me for giant leaps of faith? LOL! If science is wrong it will be found out by the same method used for many years. But your giant leap of faith has nothing at all to even point in the direction of truth.
  
  Have you tried to prove your faith wrong? Are you constantly checking to see if the bible is really true? Science does this to itself. Your ilk simply accepts the ancient musings of unknown writers. Talking about a giant leap of faith! LOL!
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just because you cannot fathom our existence without a deity, doesn't mean everyone has the same incapability. What if you are promoting the wrong god to your congregation? You may be leading them into losing their souls by worshiping the wrong god.
  
  It's okay to condemn yourself to such, but not other susceptible people.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And just what if you are wrong. It would seem that we both have our crosses to bear.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am recommending no particular god for others to worship. Are you?
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I guess it depends on what your definition of a god is. To me your god is Science. It is all powerful, and with peer review can never be wrong. And heaven forbid (Or should I say Science forbid), if I should cross one of your gurus who have their multiple degrees just because they cannot substantiate their claims for the beginnings of the universe or life.
  report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well...when the number of possible Gods are infinite, you are basically guaranteed that you are wrong. Those odds are just too great.
  
  The most honest position to take is "I don't know"
  
  Not being able to accept this, some people allow fear to dominate.
  
  And it is weak to make a choice based upon fear.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So I see you are an agnostic. From all of your posts it would seem that you've made up your mind that there cannot be a god. I am glad you are finally being honest.
  report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  GodTalk, everyone, with any understanding of logic, knows that the possibity of their being a God cannot be proven or disproven, therefore from a standpoint of logic, I made the prior statement.
  
  But I'm practically sure that your absurd concept of God is completely insane and deserves no more consideration than Rumpelstiltskin.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So you admit that atheism is illogical?
  report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Your beliefs are not even common sense.
  You believe ignorance is knowledge.
  
  You believe Abraham is a saint, yet, anyone reading that story without being completely brainwashed, can clearly see he exemplifies the tenets of the pure evil(killing your own kid)in your willfully ignorance beliefs.
  
  Why don't you see the extreme insanity in your religion, before passing judgment upon something thousands of times more honest than your nonsense.
  
  This is hopelessly absurd.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It may be absurd but you didn't answer my original question. If it is a matter of logic that you cannot disprove the existence of God, is atheism illogical? Surely, agnosticism is a better choice if you cannot know for sure there is a god?
  Clearly, I believe that there is enough evidence for the existence of God to go beyond either one of these. And once again, so do thousands of others more intelligent than I.
  I am in good company, just as I bet you think you are as well.
  report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Then you are saying that you are agnostic? If you are anything else, then are you admitting to being illogical as well?
  ...and just how does that help YOUR argument?
  
  You, sir, seem to be a case of extreme Christ Psychosis. You will grasp at anything to "prove" that nonsense is knowledge, and that, somehow, faith in insanity is to be given the same status as common sense.
  
  Even if atheism were illogical, at least it is an honest position. Your position is dishonest and completely immoral.
  
  Good day, and good riddance.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't claim to get all of my knowlege from Science like you do. But I do see that the whole ordered universe is more than enough evidence that there is actually an intelligence behind it. For the record, I think both agnosticism and atheism are equally flawed ways of looking at life.
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Notice that it is only science that provides knowledge about the universe, hence your information came from where?
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I answered this question, so I choose to ignore it, except that my own eyes show me the coplexity and design of creation as well. I don't need Science to tell me the world is a vast and complicated system that has evidence of design. I just have to use the intelligently designed eyes that I have been given. Science does add much to my knowledge, but not all.
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, your eyes are fixated on your bible which is teaching you to accept creation.
  
  Of course, science has never discovered, offered, claimed or provided any evidence for design.
  
  If your eyes were designed, then they were very poorly designed, considering the amount of flaws they possess.
  
  No, you selectively decide what to accept based on your religious beliefs, if it contradicts or threatens the foundations of your beliefs, you will reject it, no matter what.
  report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Extreme Christ Psychosis". That is a new one. I've never read that in any Psychiatric books before. It must be that you are a Psychiatrist as well as an expert on evoultion.
  report
  60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Men of science start from the premise, "We do Not Know," and are proud to start from a position of ignorance and go in search of truth.
  
  They do not start with an unprovable Fact and try to justify it as you are doing.
  reply report
  60
  Merlin Fraserposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know why I bother trying to explain anything to you but you may want to take into consideration TIME as part of your rediculous argument.
  
  What Darwin wrote 150 years ago were his theories, since then science has kinda moved on a bit !
  
  Most of his theories have since been scientifically proved and accepted, even by the Vatican, the science of Genetics and the study of DNA backs up most of Darwin's work.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The Vatican is free to say anything it likes. I'm not Catholic. And once again, I'm not against all of the theories of Science. Just ones that some people have attached to the original theory of Evolution in order to explain their fairy tales for the existence of life.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You just said you don't get your information from science, so how can you support some theories and not others? You contradict yourself.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently you delight in purposely misreading what people say for the sake of argument. I didn't say I didn't get my information from Science. I said that it is not the only place. And if Science has any good information to offer, it would be foolish to ignore it. If it clearly doesn't in an area, it would be foolish to follow it.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There are no other places than science to get that information. Where else would you get it?
  
  Then, you are ignoring it, the rest are your words.
  reply report
  56
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And you are clearly ignoring the first half of my statement.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So, where do you get your information, then?
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
Ok since I'm doing it in an illiterate manner, than why don't you show its done in an intelligent manner, you are the smart one. I have been asking for anyone of you "smart" people to explain to form your super smart mind, show me one point of fact of evolution. surely with all that brain power you possess you shouldn't problem putting a couple of paragraph togather to show this poor ignorant soul why you believe evolution. all I asked was that you bring out some points that you stand on in your religion. and with all that intelligents you can't you even do that.
reply report
1. 60
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Natural selection.
  reply report
54
r-o-yposted 14 years ago
Thank you for giving me something to help me try and understand where you are coming from. You say that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible. But one is described but its not called a dinosaur, its called “Bethemoth” It is written in the book of Job:

[Job 40:15-18] Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; he eats grass ox. Behold now, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He bends his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze; his limbs are like bars of iron.

I really don’t understand your question about the fossil record, because the fossils prove Darwin’s theory to slow mutation to be wrong. Darwin knew this, so the fossil record is not a friend to evolution it debunks evolution. The fossil record show that animals show up abruptly
Fully formed, there is nothing in the fossil record to give any impression of one species transforming into another.

I have been at this all day, so now I have to take care of some business, so if you reply it will be tomorrow before you hear from me.
reply report
61
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
getitright. wrote ... "just what then makes Him superior to me?"

Here lies the source of someones frustration.
To answer your question... Everything does.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I can't wait to here how everything does! Let's hear it Jerami!
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well the evidence seem to support the opposite.
  
  I have killed no one
  God killed millions and continues to kill.
  
  I could never allow someone to go to hell.
  God allows people to go to hell, simply, for not believing in him.
  
  Then God goes on to curse snakes, fig trees, etc., for no sane reason whatsoever.
  
  If this entity is better than I'm, then I should rid the earth of myself immediately.
  reply report
  61
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What makes God better than Getitrite??
  
  You are joking, right?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course not, Jerami. Let's hear it. Tell me what your god says about evolution, we've heard Getitrite. You can speak for god just as easily as a preacher, and probably make more sense too.
  reply report
  61
  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I haven't read anything in the book that afirms nor denies evolution.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  GodTalk will not like that answer, but at least you are truthful about it. Thanks! You are more honest than any preacher I've ever met.
  reply report
2. 72
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry, Jerami, but I couldn't stoop to the level of your murderous, psychotic, immoral God.
  
  But thanks for the knee-jerk nonsense.
  reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 14 years ago
Enough. I want this thread to die.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who cares what you want, no one is making you read any of this. Just go away if you don't like it.
  reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 14 years ago
Hammer.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nails!
  reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 14 years ago
?
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 4 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Why do creationists tell such outrageous LIES to attack evolution?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Why do creationists tell such outrageous LIES to attack evolution?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies